MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 8, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 24CV01780
JOHNSON v. THOLE, et al.
(UNOPPOSED) REFEREE’S MOTION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND TERMINATING SALE TO CONTRACT BUYER AND SELL PROPERTY TO ALTERNATE BUYER
The unopposed motion is granted. Based on the Referee’s recommendation, the Court will conduct an overbid hearing to maximize the value of the property for the benefit of all owners and approves Referee’s “Rules for Confirmation and Overbid Hearing” (Referee’s Exhibit 7). Based on the Referee’s anticipated overbid hearing length of 10 minutes, the Referee will conduct the overbid hearing with oversight and supervision by the Court at the 8:30 am calendar.
No. 25CV00613
JIMENEZ v. FCA US, LLC
MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES
This is a Song-Beverly, negligent repair, and fraud action filed on February 21, 2025, against defendants FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) and Watsonville Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram. Plaintiff seeks to compel documents it asserts FCA did not disclose as required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 and seeks $2,500.00 in sanctions against FCA and its counsel.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 8, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
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?”
In opposition, FCA contends plaintiff filed this motion without engaging in the meet and confer process and that it served disclosures and documents in a timely manner on or about June 23, 2025. (Opp. at p. 1.) FCA maintains it does have additional documents to produce but will provide them only after the execution of a stipulated protective order, which it circulated to plaintiff’s counsel on June 12, 2025. FCA contends that plaintiff’s counsel will not stipulate to the proposed protective order even though it has done so in other cases and is based upon the Los Angeles County Superior Court protective order model. (Decl. of Gavrilescu at ¶¶ 9-10, Ex. A.)
At the last hearing on this motion, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer within 20 days regarding the proposed stipulated protective order. Parties are directed to appear to provide the Court with a status on their meet and confer efforts.