Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents rulings statewide →
Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes. | 10-2-26 | Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval Declaration of Class Administrator | A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for October 27, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court. The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines.
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 - HEARING REQUIRED. It is not clear to the Court from the parties' Joint Status Statement precisely which requests in Plaintiff's Requests for Production Set One, remain outstanding following further meet and confer. The Court requires clarification on the matter.
CV-26-000462 - CASAREZ, ENRIQUE vs WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC - a) Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiff's Verified Complaint - OVERRULED, in part, SUSTAINED, in part; b) Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint - GRANTED, without prejudice.
a) As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Defendant's failure to file his mandatory Demurrer pleading and to state the grounds on which the demurrer is brought, permitting the Court to disregard same. (Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 430.60; See also Rutter Guide - A. Demurrers, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7(I)-A) and CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1112 and Rule 3.1320). However, the Court exercises its discretion to consider same. (McAllister v. Cnty. of Monterey, (2007)147 Cal. App. 4th 253). Nevertheless, Counsel is cautioned to observe the above listed procedural requirements in connection with future submissions.
Where a doctor obtains consent of the patient to perform one type of treatment and subsequently performs a substantially different treatment for which consent was not obtained, there is a clear case of battery. (Piedra v. Dugan, (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 1483, In the medical context, battery theory should be reserved for those circumstances when a doctor performs an operation to which the patient has not consented. (Piedra v. Dugan, supra). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that he consented to a tooth extraction, but that Defendant used excessive force for said extraction. This does not meet the lack of consent requirement for this cause of action.
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?”
However, Plaintiff alleges consent to a bone graft procedure procured by fraud. The allegations as to fraud are contained in Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit which Defendant did not demur to, justifying the conclusion that said Third Cause of Action is well pled. Fraud vitiates consent or renders the agreement procured by the fraud voidable. (Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Sec. Corp., (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 394). Elimination of Plaintiff's consent to the bone graft procedure based on the alleged fraud renders Defendant's touching for said procedure harmful or offensive and meets the elements for the battery cause of action.
Notably, Courts may affirm the sustaining of a demurrer only if the complaint fails to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. (Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd., (2009)45 Cal. 4th 992). Civil Procedure Code section 354's inclusion of "An act of torture, as described in Section 206 of the Penal Code" in the list of the causes of action with a ten year statute of limitations indicates a separate category of tort action warranting special treatment and demonstrates legislative recognition of some overlap between battery and torture under circumstances where said conduct would also amount to torture. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 354.8; Penal Code Sec. 206). Plaintiff, however, fails to allege great bodily injury from the bone graft procedure or from the two molars allegedly removed without clinical justification that would meet the requirements of Penal Code Sec. 206).
Accordingly, Defendant's demurrer to Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action is overruled. Defendant's demurrer to Plaintiff's Fourth Causes of Action is sustained with leave to amend.