MOTION TO CONTINUE ON CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CHRISTOPHER NEIL ENTERPRISES MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES BY GAUSTON CORP.
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO CONTINUE ON CROSS- CHRISTOPHER NEIL COMPLAINT OF CHRISTOPHER NEIL CVPS2304959 ENTERPRISES, INC. VS ENTERPRISES MOTION TO CONTINUE SUSSMAN TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES BY GAUSTON CORP. Tentative Ruling: Hearing taken off calendar by court. Court approved stipulation and order to continue trial on March 10, 2026 rendering this motion moot, which was filed February 20, 2026.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT VINTAGE ASSOCIATES INC'S FURTHER CVPS2500795 MANSOORI VS WALMART, INC. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE BY MANSORA MANSOORI Tentative Ruling: Hearing continued to July 28, 2026 at 8:30 AM in Department PS2.
This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Mansora Mansoori was picking up an order from Walmart, Inc. located at 34500 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, California on February 4, 2023. While walking through the parking lot, Plaintiff unexpectedly tripped on a protruding tree stump and fell. Plaintiff sustained injuries.
On January 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Walmart and developer/property management company, Rothbart Development Corporation. On August 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a DOE Amendment naming Vintage Associates, Inc. as a co-defendant.
On September 30, 2025, Plaintiff served an initial set of written discovery upon Defendant Vintage Associates, Inc. including Demand for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission. Defendant provided objection-only responses on January 14, 2026.
Plaintiff now brings the instant motion to compel Defendant Vintage Associates, Inc. to provide further responses to Demand for Production of Documents is set to be heard on June 9, 2026. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant for having to bring the instant motion.
In Opposition, Defendant asserts it has provided supplemental responses to all requests at issue making the instant motions moot. Defendant also argues monetary sanctions are not appropriate and the amount requested is excessive and unreasonable.
In Reply, Plaintiff states Defendant provided unverified further responses on the same day Plaintiff’s Reply was due (June 1, 2026). Plaintiff argues this means no supplemental responses have been provided yet so the motions are not moot.
Motion to Compel Further Response(s)
Under CCP §§ 2031.310
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?”