Ruby v. Farano

The Case Management Conference is continued to August 06, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this department.

Plaintiff to give notice.

2 Rodriguez v. The unopposed Demurrer by Defendants Michael Mahon, Obie Walli, Eli Mahon Realty Investments, LLC and Exclusive Lifestyles SoCal, LLC to Plaintiffs Jessie Rodriguez; Josh Painter, J. Painter Real Estate, LLC and J. Painter, Inc.; Amy Green, individually, and as trustee of the Amy Green Trust u/a/d May 15, 2001; Peter Lorimer; Jose Zavalza; Oscar Mendoza; Jason Lucero; ("Avance"); ZMR Real Estate, Inc.; and LMM Real Estate, Inc.’s (aka “All Plaintiffs except for Danny Morel and Avance Real Estate, Inc.”) FAC filed under ROA 171 is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

The failure to oppose a demurrer may be construed as having abandoned the claims. (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20 (“Plaintiffs did not oppose the County's demurrer to this portion of their seventh cause of action and have submitted no argument on the issue in their briefs on appeal. Accordingly, we deem plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue”).) In addition, it is axiomatic the failure to challenge a contention in a brief results in the concession of that argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v.

Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 562, 566 (“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”); Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 507, 529 (“failure to address the threshold question . . . effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot”); Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. Parks (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 1424 (issue is impliedly conceded by failing to address it).)

Here, there is no opposition to the Demurrer and therefore, the court deems the Demurrer on the grounds stated as unopposed and construes the failure to oppose the Demurrer as an abandonment of the claims argued therein.

Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS the Demurrer in full, but nevertheless GRANTS Plaintiffs 20 days leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Management Conference

The Case Management Conference is continued to August 06, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this department.

Plaintiff to give notice.

3 Ruby v. Farano Plaintiffs Paula Sanburg Ruby and Barry Ruby move to compel further responses from Defendant Charles M. Farano to Requests for Admission, Set One. For the following reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

A party may move to compel further responses to requests for admission where an answer is evasive or incomplete, or where an

objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290(a).) Before bringing such a motion, the moving party must make a reasonable and good-faith effort to meet and confer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290(b)(1).) The motion must also be accompanied by either a separate statement or a concise outline identifying the requests and responses in dispute and the reasons further responses should be compelled. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(1), (c); Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290(b)(2).)

Here, the motion is procedurally defective because it is not accompanied by either the required separate statement or a concise outline identifying the requests and responses in dispute. In addition, Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their meet-and-confer obligations because they conducted no further meet-and-confer efforts after Defendant served amended responses. Further, Defendant served second amended responses after the motion was filed, which may have resolved or narrowed the issues in dispute.

Defendant to give notice.

4 Lee v. Vinfast Plaintiff Kevin Lee’s motions to compel further responses to special Auto LLC interrogatories, set one, form interrogatories, set one, requests for admission, set one against Defendant Vinfast Auto, LLC is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses, as set forth below, within 20 days of this order. The court also imposes sanctions against Defendant in the total amount of $2,400 for all three motions, payable to Plaintiff by July 02, 2026.

Plaintiff Kevin Lee’s motions to compel further responses to requests for production, set one is DENIED.

Motions to Compel Further Responses to: (1) Special Interrogatories, Set One (ROA # 30), (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (ROA #27) and (3) Requests for Admission, Set One (ROA #28)

Plaintiff Kevin Lee moves to compel Defendant to:

• Serve further responses to special interrogatory nos. 1-5, 9-12, 15-18, and 24-36, • Serve further responses to form interrogatory nos. 4.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 15.1, and 17.1, • Serve further responses to requests for admission nos. 8, 9, 11, and 13, • Remove all general objections made in the preliminary statement for each of these sets of discovery, • Sign all responses under oath, and • Remove meritless specific objections to the discovery at issue.

On a motion to compel, the responding party has the burden of establishing a valid objection, including any claim of privilege. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.) “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for

5