DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CECG03466·fresno·Probate·Discovery
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

Giumarra Brothers Fruit Co. v. Mora

Defendant’s Motion For Relief From Discovery Waiver

Hearing date
Jun 2, 2026
Department
503
Prevailing
Opposing Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGiumarra Brothers Fruit Co.
DefendantMora

Ruling

(20) Tentative Ruling

Re: Giumarra Brothers Fruit Co. v. Mora Case No. 23CECG03466

Hearing Date: June 2, 2026 (Dept. 503)

Motion: Defendant’s Motion For Relief From Discovery Waiver

Tentative Ruling:

To deny.

Explanation:

Defendant once again moves for relief from the failure to timely file his motion to compel further responses to his request for production of documents, set one. Defendant argues that the motion was submitted for e-filing on April 10, 2026, but was not actually filed until April 24, 2026, due to a technical error or “excusable neglect,” though it was “timely” served on plaintiff on April 10.

The motion “For Relief From Discovery Waiver” is a bit of a misnomer, as there has been no waiver, in the sense of waiver of objections. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) As clearly explained in the court’s May 7, 2026 order denying the motion to compel, defendant’s statutory deadline to file the motion was April 1, 2026. The court has no jurisdiction to grant a motion brought after the deadline has run, and such an untimely motion must be denied. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v.

Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 137; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 683.) As the court explained in the order denying the motion, “defendant did not file his motion to compel until April 24, 2026, 23 days after the deadline to file the motion expired.” It would make no difference if the motion were deemed filed on April 10 instead of April 24. Whether the motion was filed 9 days or 23 days after the statutory deadline, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the motion.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: JS on 5/28/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

3

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share