Status Conference
9
continues the May 21, 2026 status conference to September 10, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX105. The parties are ordered to file a joint status conference statement at least 5 court days before the hearing. Clerk to give notice.
5 Kirshner v. Optima Tax Relief, LLC
2025-01523978 Status Conference in Case No. 2025-01523978
The court has reviewed the parties’ joint status conference statement filed May 15, 2026 (ROA 39), and based thereon continues the May 21, 2026 status conference to September 10, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX105. The parties are ordered to file a joint status conference statement at least 5 court days before the hearing. Clerk to give notice.
6 Greenough v. SoCal Investment Group, Inc.
2025-01488601 Defendant SoCal Investment Group, Inc.’s Motion to Defer Class and PAGA Discovery
Defendant SoCal Investment Group, Inc. moves pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 2019.020(b) for an order “deferring discovery on the merits of plaintiff’s . . . class claims and . . . PAGA claim until after a class certification motion is heard and decided.” Notice of Motion (ROA 58) at 2:6-8. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is denied.
Civil Procedure Code section 2019.020 states: (a) Except as otherwise provided by a rule of the Judicial Council, a local court rule, or a local uniform written policy, the methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or another method, shall not operate to delay the discovery of any other party. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on motion and for good cause shown, the court may establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.020.
“California law has long made clear that to require a party to supply proof of any claims or defenses as a condition of discovery in support of those claims or defenses is to place the cart before the horse.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551.
Defendant argues discovery should be deferred until after class certification because plaintiff allegedly cannot satisfy the typicality requirement for class certification and allegedly lacks PAGA standing because “plaintiff personally has not suffered any injury.” Brief (ROA 52) at 1:9-13.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant’s contention that “plaintiff kept her own time records, was herself responsible for making sure she took all required rest periods and meal periods, and represented in writing through her weekly time sheets that she had taken all required meal breaks,” and that therefore plaintiff has no viable rest and meal break claims “and therefor has no valid claims” against defendant ignores that plaintiff alleges several claims in addition to rest and meal break claims. ROA 2.
Furthermore, defendant ignores California Supreme Court authority holding that an alleged lack of standing does not constitute good cause to defer discovery. See Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 558-59 (“[T]he way to raise lack of standing is to plead it as an affirmative defense, and thereafter to bring a motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment, not to resist discovery until a plaintiff proves he or she has standing.”).
The appellate authorities defendant cites predate Williams and, in any event, neither Stephen v. Enterprise Rent-A- Car (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 806, nor Fight for the Rams v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 953, involves discovery in a class and PAGA action. Plaintiff to give notice.
Plaintiff Jazmine Greenough’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff Jazmine Greenough moves to compel defendant SoCal Investment Group, Inc. to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) Nos. 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Civil Procedure Code section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(a).
On September 10, 2025 plaintiff served Special Interrogatories (Set Two) on defendant. Barvie Decl. (ROA 35) ¶ 5; Goonan Decl. (ROA 68) Ex.
6.
On October 17, 2025 defendant served responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set Two). Goonan Decl. (ROA 68) ¶ 12 & Ex.
8.
The parties subsequently engaged in meet and confer efforts regarding defendant’s objections to the special interrogatories at issue via written correspondence. Barvie Decl. (ROA 35) ¶¶ 6-8 & Exs. C, D, E & F.
On December 1, 2025 plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel. ROA 35.
The interrogatories in dispute are addressed in turn below:
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please state which Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, if any, YOU contend applies to each job position identified in Special Interrogatory No. 4.