Plaintiff Jose Ruiz's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, Request for Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
in accordance with the provisions contained therein. As no other indicia of substantive unconscionability are present, the agreement is not invalid on that ground. Lastly, as to the question of whether class claims are included within the scope of arbitrable issues in this instance, the Court finds that question to be more properly submitted to the arbitrator for determination. (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233.) All remaining proceedings, including the representative (PAGA) claim asserted in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, are stayed pending completion of arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1281.4.)
CV-25-011555 - CERVERA, CECILIA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC - a) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion; b) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cecilia Cervera's Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One and Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. a-b) These matters are CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to September 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 23, to be heard following the hearing on Plaintiff's counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-18-003129 - OVRAHIM, NARMELIN vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY - Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration on Order Granting Summary Judgment - CONTINUED, on Plaintiff's motion. California Code of Civ Pro Sec. 437c, subd. (h) permits the Court to order a continuance on a Motion for Summary Judgment to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, where facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented. " The Court finds that information related to the precise location and extent of the Defendant's 2017 fencing installation relative to the open approach Decedent used, when Defendant set the fencing in motion, what prompted it, and whether fencing this corridor reduced pedestrian incidents are relevant to the issue of foreseeability of risk herein, and the potential imposition of a duty to remedy on Defendant and to Plaintiffs' Opposition to this Motion.
However, due to the late amendment to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions, said information was not relevant and or previously available to oppose Defendant's motion. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is continued at Plaintiffs' request to permit discovery into this additional material evidence.?(Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015), 238 Cal.App.4th 632, review filed, review denied; Ambrose v. Michelin North America, Inc. (2005), 134 Cal.App.4th 1350; Frazee v.
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?”
Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627). Accordingly, this matter is continued to August 18, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.
CV-25-002580 - RUIZ, JOSE RUIZ vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff Jose Ruiz's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, Request for Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. The Court finds that the parties will benefit from further meet and confer to narrow down the discovery requests in dispute. In this regard, the Court notes Defendant's reliance on California Assembly Bill No. 1755, Sec. 871.26(h)(1) - (17) and notes that this list refers to "initial disclosures", is not an exhaustive list and does not preempt statutory discovery.
Accordingly, Counsel are ordered to engage in substantive meet and confer efforts "either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion" prior to the next hearing date (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2016.040). Parties are reminded that civil discovery is intended to be self-executing, and that argument is not the same as informal negotiation. Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v.
Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277). Good faith meet and confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's position in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424). The parties shall file a joint status statement of not more than ten (10) pages not later than five (5) court days prior to the continued hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion.
The joint status statement shall indicate which of Defendant's responses remain at issue. Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to July 16, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court for further good faith meet and confer on the disputed discovery.
CV-25-012491 - FRELIX, ANTONIO vs OAKLAND MOTOR CARS INC - Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Putative Class Claims, and Stay Proceedings - CONTINUED, by stipulation. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation of June 5, 2026, this matter is CONTINUED to July 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.
CV-26-001048 - LANDUCCI, STEPHEN vs ROWE, BENJAMIN - a) Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, without leave to amend; b) Defendant's Motion to Strike Suit [CCP 425.16] - MOOT. a) Request For Judicial Notice Defendant requests judicial notice of documents and proceedings from Stanislaus County case number PR-23-000109. Under Evidence Code section 452, the Court may take judicial notice of the existence and legal effect of court records but may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements or disputed factual findings contained therein.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: The request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence, filing, and legal effect of the documents, including the fact of settlement and dismissal with prejudice. The request is DENIED to the extent it seeks judicial notice of the truth of factual assertions or testimony contained in those materials.
Legal Standard
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The Court assumes the truth of all properly pleaded material facts, but not conclusions of law or fact. The Court also considers matters properly subject to judicial notice.
First Cause of Action-Breach of Contract The first cause of action fails to state a claim against Defendant and it is barred by the two-year statue of limitations period for oral agreements. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 339). The complaint alleges a contract between Plaintiff and his father, Leo Landucci. Defendant is not alleged to be a party to the contract. A breach of contract claim requires that the defendant be a party to the contract or otherwise bound by it. The complaint affirmatively demonstrates that Defendant was acting solely as the decedent's attorney.
This cause of action also fails due to the Complaint's failure to allege that Defendant was a party to the agreement he is alleged to have breached. (Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exchange, (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 990). Plaintiff's opposition does not meaningfully dispute this defect and instead seeks leave to amend to assert different causes of action. Additionally, the claim appears time-barred on the face of the pleadings. Plaintiff alleges a breach occurring in July 2021, yet this action was filed in 2026.
The delayed discovery rule postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action. (Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., (2013) 55 Cal. 4th 1185) The Complaint does not allege facts that would support the application of the delayed discovery rule such as the date of Plaintiff's discovery of the relevant facts supporting the cause of action for breach of contract.