Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
notice of the settlement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The proposed notice plan, notice forms, and claims administration procedures appear to satisfy due process and the requirements of the California Rules of Court. The proposed order accurately reflects the material terms of the settlement and the procedures for notice, objections, opt’outs, and final approval.
Accordingly, the Court: Preliminarily approves the settlement for purposes of notice and final approval. Provisionally certifies the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. Appoints Plaintiff as Class Representative and Bibiyan Law Group, P.C. as Class Counsel. Approves the proposed Class Notice and notice dissemination plan. Appoints Apex Class Action Administration as Settlement Administrator. Sets deadlines and procedures for notice, objections, exclusions, and challenges as set forth in the proposed order.
A Final Approval Hearing shall be scheduled for: October 9, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. Plaintiff shall file the motion for final approval, along with all supporting papers, including the administrator's declaration, by the deadline specified in the order granting preliminary approval.
CV-25-009148 - PEREZ, HENRY ERNEST vs VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24, for further meet and confer.
This is a Song?Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("lemon law") action. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to requests for production, contending the responses are incomplete and consist largely of objections. Defendant opposes the motion and represents that it has engaged in meet’and’confer efforts and that additional discussions may further narrow or resolve the remaining disputes.
Based on the papers submitted, it appears there is a reasonable possibility that additional good’faith meet’and’confer efforts may resolve or significantly narrow further discovery issues, particularly given the nature of lemon law discovery, which frequently involves standardized categories of documents (e.g., repair records, warranty information, and communications) that may be amenable to clarification or supplementation without court intervention.
Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses is continued to June 25, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. The parties are ordered to meet and confer further in good faith during the continuance. No later than June 22, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication. The Court reminds counsel that discovery is intended to be self’executing and that meaningful meet’and’confer efforts require serious attempts at informal resolution, not mere exchange of adversarial correspondence. No ruling is made at this time on the merits of the motion or any request for sanctions.
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?”
CV-26-002704 - CHAHAL, RAJWANT K vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration - Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is GRANTED.
Defendants have met their burden to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Although Plaintiff denies signing the arbitration agreement, Defendants submitted competent evidence explaining the electronic onboarding process, including the use of a secure portal requiring a unique username and password, and showing Plaintiff electronically executed multiple onboarding documents on the same date. This evidence is sufficient to authenticate Plaintiff's electronic signature and distinguish this case from those in which arbitration was denied for lack of attribution. (See Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047.)