Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Production
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
7. 30-2024-01416560
Rodriguez vs. CR&R Incorporated 1. Motion to Compel Further Reponses to Special Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Production
Defendant CR&R INCORPORATED (hereinafter, “CR&R”) moves this Court to compel Plaintiff JOEL MARTIN RODRIGUEZ, (hereafter “Plaintiff”), to provide verified further responses to CR&R’s Request for Production, Set Two, Nos. 38 and 39, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.280, and 2031.310. (ROA 84)
Defendant CR&R INCORPORATED (hereinafter, “CR&R” or “Defendant”) moves this Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 et seq, for the following: 1. An Order compelling Plaintiff, JOEL MARTIN RODRIGUEZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) to respond to CR&R Incorporated’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two without objections within ten (10) days of the hearing on this Motion; and 2. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,260.00 against Plaintiff and/or his counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2030.300(d). (ROA 85)
The unopposed Motions are GRANTED pursuant to the arguments and authorities raised in the motions. Plaintiff’s response to RPDs are not clear. As to Special Interrogatory No. 82, Plaintiff’s objections have not been justified. [Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 C2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255.]
Further responses, without objections, to be provided within 15 days of service of the notice of ruling. Sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel, joint and severally, in the amount of $1,260 to be paid within 30 days.
Defendant to give notice.
8. 30-2024-01413986
Crossroads Equipment Lease and Finance, LLC vs. 3531 Trucking, Inc 1. Motion to Enforce Settlement 2. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal on Settled Case
Plaintiff, CROSSROADS EQUIPMENT LEASE AND FINANCE, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 664.6 and 128, to enforce a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants 3531 TRUCKING, INC. and MIGUEL A. MIRANDA (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”) and enter judgment pursuant to a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (the “Stipulation”) entered into by and between the Parties.
The uopposed Motion is GRANTED.
The court is empowered to enter judgment where parties to pending litigation stipulate to a settlement in a writing signed by the parties or their counsel outside court. [CCP § 664.6
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?”
Here, on 6/30/2025 the parties herein signed a “Stipulation to Entry of Judgment” (Decl. St. Clair¶3, Ex. A.) wherein Defendants stipulate to entry of judgment against them, jointly and severally, in favor in the amount of $44,637.72. However, the parties also agreed to hold off on entering judgment to allow Defendants to make payments. The Declaration of Plaintiff’s Senior Recovery Specialist states Defendants made $12,000 worth of payments, but then defaulted. (Decl. of St. Clair¶5.) As such, pursuant to the agreement and law, Plaintiff is entitled to the remaining principal, interest, attorneys fees, costs, and possession of the equipment.