Castro’s Cleaning Servs. Co., Inc., v Ryan Peacock, Inc., et al
Motion to Compel Responses from Ryan Peacock, Inc. to Special Interrogatories, Set One
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
13. Guy v. Loma Linda Univ. Med. Cntr., et al, Case No. CIVSB2607407 Def. Loma Linda’s Demurrer 6/10/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17
The Court would CONTINUE the matter so that movant may satisfy the meet-and-confer requirements. Prior to a demurrer, a party is required meet and confer in person or by telephone or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading for purposes of “determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a).) Here, the supporting declaration does not confirm compliance with the meet-and-confer requirements. (See Cannon Decl.)
Rather, the declaration simply unilaterally asserts that the attorney “met and conferred.” (Cannon Decl., ¶2.) No statements were provided setting forth the actions that constitute the attempt. Thus, the Court cannot confirm whether the process was in person, by telephone, or by video, as required by Code. Thus, the Court would continue the matter to allow a supplemental declaration expressly showing compliance. Defendant will file a supplemental declaration at least ten court days before the next hearing.
*** *** ***
14. Castro’s Cleaning Servs. Co., Inc., v Ryan Peacock, Inc., et al, Case No. CIVSB2505507 Motion to Compel Responses from Ryan Peacock, Inc. to Special Interrogatories, Set One 6/10/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17
The Court would GRANT Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel responses from Defendant Ryan Peacock to Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROG1). The Court would further GRANT sanctions in the amount of $1,141.00. Both responses and sanctions are due within thirty days.
Relevant here, Plaintiff served SROG1 on Defendant Ryan Peacock on September 29, 2025. (Schiller Decl., ¶2.) An extension on time to respond was requested and granted, and, pursuant to the extension, responses were due no later than January 6, 2026. (Schiller Decl., ¶3.) No responses have been provided; thus, the motion became necessary.
*** *** ***
2
Cited authorities
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?”