MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET ONE BY VISTANA CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT, INC.
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL 664.6 CAPITAL ONE N.A. VS AND ENTRY JUDGMENT UNDER CVPS2500563 KARROLL TERMS OF STIPULATION SETTLEMENT BY CAPITAL ONE N.A. Tentative Ruling: Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment per Terms of Stipulation GRANTED. Dismissal pursuant to 664.6 entered on 12.11.25 is vacated. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff Capital One against Defendant Barbara L Karroll. Damages of $2039.53 + $570 costs for total award of $2609.53
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED ORTEGA, AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR CVPS2503476 VS MARRIOTT ADMISSIONS SET ONE BY VISTANA INTERNATIONAL, INC CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT, INC. Tentative Ruling: If a party fails to provide any response to interrogatories or RFPs, the propounding party may move to compel responses. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) Additionally, if a party fails to respond to RFAs, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses or admitting the truth of the matters set forth in the requests. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).)
There is no meet and confer requirement for any of the above motions. Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff failed to provide timely, verified responses to the discovery served by Vistana, including RFAs (nos. 1-24), FROGs (nos. 1.1, 2.1- 2.13, 4.1-4.2, 6.1-6.7, 7.1-7.3, 8.1-8.8, 9.1-9.2, 10.1-10.3, 11.1-11.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1- 13.2, 14.1-14.2, and 17.1), two sets of SPROGs (nos. 1-62 and 63-76), and RFPs (nos. 1-30). An unverified response is tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)
Therefore, Defendants have failed to provide timely responses to any of the discovery at issue.
Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, GRANTED.
Plaintiff to submit verified responses, without objection, to RFAs 1-24.
Sanctions in the amount of $335 to be paid to Plaintiff’s attorney within 30 days. Case Management Conference continued to 8.18.26.
The parties are ordered to file with the Court ten days in advance of the continued CMC a joint declaration of counsel addressing whether the parties have agreed upon a discovery timeline, and if so what that timeline is, and what form of alternative dispute resolution the parties believe is appropriate in this case. The updated Case Management Statement shall be submitted on pleading paper with a brief summary of the status of the
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?”
case and any specified issues that need to be addressed by the court. Do not use Judicial Counsel form CM-110.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; ORTEGA, AN INDIVIDUAL REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CVPS2503476 VS MARRIOTT PLAINTIFF AND/OR PLAINTIFF'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. ATTORNEYS OF RECORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $967.50 BY VISTANA CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT, INC. Tentative Ruling: Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff to submit verified responses, without objection, to FROGs 1.1, 2.1-2.5, 2.8-2.12, 4.2, 6.1-6.3, 6.5, 7.1-7.3, 8.1-8.2, 8.5, 8.7-8.8, 9.1-9.2, 10.1-10.3, 11.1-11.2, 12.2-12.7, 13.1-13.2, 14.1-14.2, and 17.1. Request for remainder is MOOT.
Sanctions in the amount of $335 to be paid to Plaintiff’s attorney within 30 days.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND ORTEGA, AN INDIVIDUAL TWO; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS CVPS2503476 VS MARRIOTT AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND/OR INTERNATIONAL, INC. PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $802.50 BY VISTANA CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT, INC. Tentative Ruling: Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Set Two, GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff to submit verified responses, without objection, to SROGs 37, 39, 41-54, 56-59, 61-62, 64-68, 71-72, and 74-75. Request for remainder is MOOT.
Sanctions in the amount of $335 to be paid to Plaintiff’s attorney within 30 days.
5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND ORTEGA, AN INDIVIDUAL REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CVPS2503476 VS MARRIOTT PLAINTIFF AND/OR PLAINTIFF'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $857.50 BY VISTANA CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT, INC. Tentative Ruling: Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Request for Production, Set One, GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff to submit verified responses, without objection, to RFPs 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 29- 30. Request for remainder is MOOT.
Sanctions in the amount of $335 to be paid to Plaintiff’s attorney within 30 days.
6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT OF GUILLAUME VS CITY OF RONDA GUILLAUME BY CITY OF CVPS2507057 CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY, MICHAEL CONTRERAS Tentative Ruling:
Special Demurrer for Uncertainty: Demurrers for uncertainty will only be sustained where the defendant cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what claims are directed against him. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Demurrers for uncertainty are to be overruled when addressed to inconsequential matters, the facts are within the knowledge of the defendant or ascertainable in discovery, or not dispositive of one or more causes of action. (Id.)
A failure to specify what aspects of a complaint are uncertain generally results in a demurrer being overruled as to such grounds. (Fenton v. Groveland Community Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809 (overruled on other grounds by Katzberg v. Regents of the University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 328.) Defendant argues that as to the 1st and 2nd causes of action, Plaintiff improperly combines multiple theories into single counts, by alleging discrimination based on her “sex, age, and/or disability or perceived disability—and/or the aggregation of two or more of those characteristics,” (FAC ¶ 34) and harassment based on her “age and/or sex, and/or the aggregation of both of those characteristics.” (Id. ¶39.)
Defendants assert that these allegations obscure the elements of each claim, preserve “every theory in every combination until trial,” and leaves Defendants to guess which theory they must answer.