HEARING RE: EQUITABLE CLAIMS
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME ROSENDO ROSALES VS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND GOLDENVOICE CROSS COMPLAINT OF CVPS2402369 PRODUCTIONS, AN GOLDENVOICE,LLC BY UNKNOWN ENTITY GOLDENVOICE, LLC Tentative Ruling: No opposition filed.
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint GRANTED.
The proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the motion shall be deemed filed as of the date of this order.
Jury trial confirmed for 9.18.26.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVPS2500145 PRIETO VS SCOTT HEARING RE: EQUITABLE CLAIMS Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. The hearing is vacated.
Maria del Refugio Prieto and Pablo Ferre Munguia have both filed complaints-inintervention. They both contend that they have a life estate interest in the property at issue in this matter and seek adjudication of this issue. (Maria del Refugio Prieto’s First Amended Complaint-in-Intervention, ¶¶ 12-14; Pablo Ferre Munguia’s First Amended Complaint-in-Intervention, ¶¶ 12-14.) They also argue that they should be reimbursed for costs for property taxes and homeowners insurance pertaining to the property under CCP § 872.140. (Maria del Refugio Prieto’s First Amended Complaint-in-Intervention, Prayer ¶ 2; Pablo Ferre Munguia’s First Amended Complaint-in-Intervention, Prayer ¶ 2.) The complaints-in-intervention assert four causes of action.
A determination of the intervenors’ interest in the property should have been made when interlocutory judgment was entered. (Summers v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 138, 143.) “[A]n interlocutory judgment in a partition action is to include two elements: a determination of the parties’ interests in the property and an order granting the partition.” (Id.) (When an intervention is allowed, the intervenor becomes a party to the action. CCP § 387(b).)
Unfortunately, a stipulated interlocutory judgment was only agreed to by Benjamin Prieto Jr. and Yolanda Scott. The interest of the intervenors is not addressed in this judgment and there is no indication that they agreed to it. Since Maria de Refugio Prieto and Pablo Ferre Munguia’s complaints-inintervention are still pending, the resolution of their claims, which all appear to be equitable, shall be done by a bench trial. Intervenors correctly point out in their briefs regarding the hearing on equitable claims that moving forward with a hearing on the merits of their claims would violate their procedural due process rights.
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?”
Trial Setting Conference is scheduled for 8.14.26 in preparation for a bench trial. Counsel are ordered to file a Trial Setting Conference declaration (preferably joint) 10 days in advance of hearing regarding mediation/ADR/ trial length in hours/ discovery/witnesses/interpreters/ status of settlement/special issues regarding evidence or exhibits/mutually agreeable trial dates within 6 months of the TSC as required by PS1 Law and Motion Rules. Failure to file can/will result in sanctions without further notice and the Court picking a firm trial date that will not be moved absent good cause.
The Status Hearing re Completion of Partition Sale set for 6.12.26 is vacated.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL: RAIZ VS VOLVO CARS ANSWER/RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION CVPS2505286 USA, LLC OF DOCUMENTS BY BAYLEY A RAIZ, JAMES R DUNAGAN Tentative Ruling: A party may file a motion compelling further responses to requests for production if it finds the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)
In a motion to compel further responses as to document requests, the moving party must state specific facts demonstrating good cause justifying the discovery sought. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.310(b)(1).) To establish good cause, the moving party must demonstrate relevance and specific facts justifying discovery. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (Guess? Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) The burden to show good cause for production “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Tbg Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
For requests for production, a response must contain a statement of compliance, an inability to comply, or an objection. (Civ. Pro. Code, § 2031.210(a).) A statement of compliance shall state that the production “will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Id. at § 2031.220.) A statement of inability of compliance shall include state that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made to comply, the reason for the inability to comply, and the name and address of any person/organization that may have the documents. (Id. at § 2031.230.)
To the extent that Defendant asserts trade secret and other privileges, Defendant fails to provide any evidence to support the privileges. The party asserting the privilege must present facts supporting a prima facie claim of privilege; only then does the opposing party have the burden of showing that the privilege does not apply, an exception applies, or there was a waiver. (Oxy Resources California, LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 894.) Here, Defendant failed to provide a privilege log. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2031.210(c)(1).)
Request No. 9 asks for all recalls and technical service bulletins (TSBs) that were issued for the subject vehicle. Defendant agreed to comply with the request “in full”. Otherwise, Defendant stated it was overbroad, burdensome, and raised other objections. Here, however, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause. Plaintiffs fail to explain why they need information for every recall, TSB, etc. rather than those related to the specific defects at issue.
No. 17 asks for manuals and publications for warranty repairs. No. 53 asks for warranty policy and procedure manuals issued to dealers. Both are relevant to determining the issues related to the defects and Defendant’s policy and procedure for