DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25NNCV09355·la·Civil·Civil
Hearing in about 5 hoursCONTINUED

Sarita Murillo vs. ABT, Inc., et al.

Motion to Compel Defendant ABT Inc.'s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Motion to Compel Defendant ABT Inc.'s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One; Motion to Compel Defendant Jagjit Singh's Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One

Hearing date
Sep 11, 2026
Department
T
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 15, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSarita Murillo
DefendantABT, Inc.
DefendantJagjit Singh

Ruling

responses as a result of mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect by September 24, 2026, and Plaintiff to file a reply by October 1, 2026.

To the extent that Plaintiff's motion represents combined motions to compel and deem admitted, Plaintiff shall pay the additional filing fee for each separately included motion by September 16, 2026. (Gov. Code Sec. 70617, subd. (a) ["Except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e), the uniform fee for filing a motion, application, or any other paper requiring a hearing subsequent to the first paper, is sixty dollars ($60)."]; Gov. Code Sec. 70617, subd. (f) ["Regardless of whether each motion or matter is heard at a single hearing or at separate hearings, the filing fees required by subdivisions (a), (c), (d), and (e) apply separately to each motion or other paper filed."].)

Furthermore, Plaintiff is directed in the future to file separate motions for each method of discovery.

Murillo vs. ABT, Inc., et al. (1) Motion to Compel Defendant ABT Inc.'s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; (2) Motion to Compel Defendant ABT Inc.'s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Jagjit Singh's Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One Moving Party: (1)-(3) Plaintiff Sarita Murillo Responding Party: (1) Defendant ABT Inc.; (2) Defendant ABT Inc.; and (3) Defendant Jagjit Singh Tentative Ruling: (1) Continued; (2) Continued; and (3) Continued

RULING

On its own motion, the Court continues the Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant ABT Inc.'s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant ABT Inc.'s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One, and the Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant Jagjit Singh's Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, scheduled for 09/11/2026 to 10/15/2026 at 8:30 AM in Department T at Alhambra Courthouse.

Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants are directed to meet and confer by telephone or video conference to resolve and/or narrow the scope of the issues addressed in the instant motions. The Court orders the parties to submit a joint brief as to any remaining issues in these motions by 10/08/2026.

Case Number: 26NNCV01440 Hearing Date: September 11, 2026 Dept: T Rudolph Paulus vs. City Of Monrovia Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages Moving Party: Defendant

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share