MV Campbell, LLC v. MOD Super Fast Pizza (California), LLC, et al.

9:00 21CV388088 Heather Rhines Order on Defendant Sierra Corporate 2 v. Management, Inc.’s Motion to Michael H. Scott, et al. Compel Further Responses to RFPs, Set One, and for Sanctions

In light of the Notice of Settlement of Entire Case filed by Plaintiff on the eve of trial on September 8, 2026, this Motion is OFF CALENDAR.

SO ORDERED.

9:00 24CV442743 MV Campbell, LLC Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to 3 v. Compel Defendants to Respond to MOD Super Fast Pizza Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests (California), LLC, et al. and for Sanctions

See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling.

After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.

9:00 24CV436896 Hassan Abpikar, et al. Order on Defendant State Farm 4 v. General Insurance Company’s State Farm Insurance, et al. Motion for Terminating Sanctions Or, Alternatively, Issue and Monetary Sanctions

See Line 4 below for complete tentative ruling.

After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.

Line 3 Case Name: MV Campbell, LLC v. MOD Super Fast Pizza (California), LLC, et al.

Case No.: 24CV442743 Plaintiff MV Cambell, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) moves under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b) to compel Defendants MOD Super Fast Pizza (California) and Mod Super Fast Pizza, LLC (“Defendants”) to respond to Plaintiff’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One (“Special Interrogatories”), and Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (“RFPs”). Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 2:2-15 (filed: Jan. 29, 2026). Moreover, Plaintiff moves for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.290(c) in the amount of $1,960.00 for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs for this Motion. Id. at 2:16-20.

The Motion came on for hearing on September 11, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.

On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff properly served Defendants with Plaintiff’s Code- Compliant RFPs. Declaration of attorney Karsyn Stewart In Support of Motion (“Stewart Decl.”) at ¶¶ 4, 7. And on November 26, 2025, Plaintiff properly served Defendants with Plaintiff’s Code-Compliant Special Interrogatories, Set One. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 6.

Under California law, Defendants had a clear duty to provide timely, Code- Compliant responses to these discovery requests.

To be timely, Defendants’ responses to the RFPs were due within 30 days after service of them on Defendants on November 21, 2025. C.C.P. § 2031.260. Likewise, Defendants’ responses to the Special Interrogatories were due within 30 days after service of them on Defendants on November 26, 2025. C.C.P. § 2030.260

To be Code Compliant, Defendants’ responses must:

• For these Special Interrogatories, comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.210 & 2030.220 by providing answers to each interrogatory that are as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to Defendants permits; C.C.P. §§ 2030.210 & 2030.220; and

• For these RFPs, comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.210-2031.230 by stating:

(a) Defendants will comply with the RFPs—and then produce the documents and items requested;

(b) Defendants are unable to comply with the RFP because the requested documents and items have never existed; or

(c) after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendants are unable to comply because the requested documents and items no longer exist or are no longer in his possession.

C.C.P. §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230.

Now, more than 9 months after these Special Interrogatories and RFPs were served on Defendants, it is undisputed that Defendants have not provided timely, Code- Compliant responses; indeed, Defendants have not responded to these discovery requests at all. Stewart Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 8. And Defendants ignored Plaintiff’s good-faith attempts to meet and confer to resolve this discovery dispute. Id. at ¶ 9.

Because Defendants violated their duty to provide timely, Code-Compliant responses to these discovery requests, Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff is entitled now to an Order:

• Ruling that Defendants have waived all objections to these Special Interrogatories and RFPs, including those based upon privilege or work product protection, under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a);

• Compelling Defendants to provide Verified Responses to the Special Interrogatories and RFAs, including all responsive documents that are in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control; and

• Awarding Sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $1,960.00 for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for this Motion.

Pl. Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion at 5:4-6:23.

Defendants do not argue otherwise. Indeed, Defendants have not opposed the Motion at all, which the Court views as Defendants conceding the Motion in its entirety. D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.; California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 9:105.10, Ch. 9 at pp. 94-95 (failure to file opposition papers to motion is treated “as an admission that the motion is meritorious”) (Weil & Brown, The Rutter Group, 2025 Ed.); see also Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).

The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendants in the total amount of $1,960.00 for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses

incurred in making this Motion is well supported (Stewart at ¶¶ 12-13), reasonable in all respects,3 and authorized by law under Code of Civil Procedures §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), and 2023.010(d).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion in all respects. Specifically, the Court ORDERS that within 30 days of today:

(1) Defendants will provide full and complete Code-Compliant responses to: (1) Plaintiff’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One; and (2) Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and will produce all the requested documents that are responsive to those discovery requests;4 and

(2) Defendants will pay Plaintiff $1,960.00 for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for this Motion.

Defendants are further put on NOTICE that if they fail to comply with this Order within 30 days of today, they may be subject to further escalating monetary and nonmonetary sanctions including but not limited to issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.

SO ORDERED.

Date: September 11, 2026

Vincent I. Parrett Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

3 Specifically, the Court finds that the hourly rates sought and the number of hours sought

for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees here, as well as the costs sought for the filing fee for this Motion, as set forth in detail in the Stewart Declaration, are reasonable in all respects.

4 Moreover, all objections to these Interrogatories and RFPs, including those based on

privilege or work product protection, are waived by Defendants as explained above.

14