TESORO HOMES INC vs BELSERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

$505,789.25. Respondent's competing motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award contains two short paragraphs of generalized, unsupported argument. Where a party fails to support arguments with specific facts or evidence, those arguments may be deemed waived. Arguments must be presented in the motion itself, not raised solely through declaration evidence. (See, e.g., Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs., Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 931, 934-935 [arguments not raised in the motion are forfeited]; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [stating that the supporting memorandum "must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced."].)

Respondent's motion does not adequately allege the sort of fraud or other grounds for invalidity which would enable the Court to make some other correction. The allegations made are, as Petitioner asserts, precisely the sort for which judicial review is unavailable. Respondent's motion to vacate, or in the alternative, correct appraisal award is GRANTED for the arithmetic error and the amount is modified to $505,789.25.

CV-24-008226 - MEDINA, JOHN JR vs BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING INC - Motion to Continue Trial - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court has questions.

CV-24-008540 - TESORO HOMES INC vs BELSERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission - DENIED.

On April 27, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to compel further responses to eleven requests for admission arguing that the responses are unverified and that many are evasive or incomplete, particularly where Plaintiff fails to identify any document supporting its response. Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further verified responses, without objections.

On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff argues the parties' meet and confer was not sufficient because the motion contains arguments not addressed during the meet and confer. Plaintiff states that it attempted to serve the verifications on March 9, 2026, just after the parties meet and confer phone call, but inadvertently attached the wrong document. The verifications were served on April 24, 2026, three days before Defendant filed its motion. Plaintiff also argues that the separate statement Defendant submitted is improper. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's separate statement contains paraphrased requests and flattened responses instead of the verbatim text. Plaintiff also argues that its responses are sufficient because Plaintiff answered each request and because no rule requires Plaintiff to support its responses with documents.

On June 29, 2026, Defendant filed a reply which largely argues that Plaintiff may not provide both objections and a response to a request for admission. Defendant argued that it does not contend that Plaintiff must identify supporting documents. As to the separate statement, Defendant argues that the separate statement it submitted is not an issue because Defendant also served the original requests and responses attached as Exhibit A to the April 28, 2026 Supplemental Declaration of Todd Elliott.

On June 30, 2026, Plaintiff submitted an objection to Defendant's new arguments submitted on reply. The same day, Defendant submitted a response to Plaintiff's objection to new arguments submitted on reply. The Court does not consider the latter two documents, as they are unauthorized.

Defendant misapprehends the purpose of a compliant separate statement. The Court is supposed to be able to look at the separate statement and determine the issues in each request. The editing of the requests which deletes the reference to the 1996 easement ought not be fatal, but failing to include the complete responses is. The failure to substantially comply with Rule 3.1345 dooms the motion. Defendant's invitation to locate the actual requests elsewhere is declined for the reasons aptly noted by Plaintiff. "Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2033.010.) "No party shall request, as a matter of right, that any other party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.030.)

"Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.210.) Responding party shall either admit the request, deny the request, or state that it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to do so. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.220.) "If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.230.)

If the merits were reached, they would likely be in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees in opposing the motion in the amount of $6,370.00 against Defendant and its counsel as reimbursement for 14 hours billed at a rate of $455 per hour. "The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2033.290.) This is reasonable under these circumstances. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2033.290, the Court orders monetary sanctions in the amount of $6,370.00 against Defendant and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, in conjunction with the instant motion. Defendant and its attorney are to pay the sanctions to Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation within 20 days.

In my last ruling on a discovery ruling, I concluded with, "Tesoro's choices concern the Court and I anticipate that the parties will substantially or completely resolve other discovery issues without its assistance." This anticipation was incorrect, and I now amend my forecast. If the parties are not able to work out their discovery differences, I anticipate that substantial meet and confer efforts will occur and any motions filed will be precisely compliant with the rules.

CV-25-003510 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs BANUELOS, LOLO M - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment - DENIED. No service of the motion is on file, and the declaration does not show good cause and is untimely. The Court lacks authority to grant the motion.

Plaintiff filed the complaint on April 14, 2025. Defendant failed to answer the complaint or otherwise appear and defend the action. On August 5, 2025, default and the clerk's judgment were entered against Defendant. On November 13, 2026, the abstract of judgment issued. On May 14, 2026, Defendant, appearing in pro per, submitted the instant motion to set aside default and default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 473(b) and 473.5. The motion is accompanied by a declaration.

"The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.) "Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken." (Id.)

In his declaration, Defendant states that he was served with the complaint and summons but did not understand that he needed to file a response. Defendant believed he could have just appeared in court. Defendant states that he appeared on a hearing date and found out a default judgment had been entered.

Section 473(b) requires that motions for relief "shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment . . . was taken." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.) Here, the default and clerk's judgment were entered on August 5, 2025. Defendant's motion was not filed until May 14, 2026, which is over 9 months after the judgment was entered. Defendant's motion is therefore untimely because it was not made within six months of the judgment.

CV-25-004154 - GARRETTSTEINMAN, DANIEL PAUL vs SIERRA CLUB - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Request for Admissions, Set No. One - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents - HEARING REQUIRED; d)