Motion to compel further responses; Demurrer; Motion to strike
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Holbrook’s objections contained in his separate statement are OVERRULED. Objections are required to be separately filed. (Rule 3.1354(b).)
For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Holbrook’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
Holbrook is ordered to give notice. 12 Pham v. Tran, Before the Court is a motion by Brian W. Easton, Esq. in which he et. al. seeks to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Dung Pham.
The Court finds the motion has been properly served on Mr. Pham. The Court also finds Mr. Pham will not be prejudiced by Mr. Easton’s withdrawal because trial has not been set. Further, because this motion is only brought by Mr. Easton, Mr. Pham will continue to be represented by Saul E. Wolf, Esq. (See Substitution at ROA 72) The Court also finds the motion generally complies with Rule 3.1362.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
The Court’s ruling will become effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the Court’s signed order on Mr. Pham.
Mr. Easton is ordered to give notice. 13 Cabrera v. Before the Court are two unopposed motions to be relieved as Ponc counsel of record for defendants Diego Ponce and P3Elite LLC filed by counsel Monica D. Dib and Nina Jafari. Both motions are GRANTED.
Each counsel has complied with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. The court finds good cause to grant the relief requested on the merits.
The order granting relief is effective upon filing of a proof of service of the signed order on the client.
Moving counsel shall give notice. 14 Black vs. A) Form Interrogatories Mercy House Living Centers Defendant Mercy House Living Centers’ (“Defendant”) unopposed motion to compel plaintiff Kevin Black’s (“Plaintiff”) further responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED.
Plaintiff appears to have failed to serve verifications with any of the interrogatories or requests for production. Failure to serve a verification is “tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Plaintiff has waived any objections to the Discovery as a result. (
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?”
Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories nos. 2.8, 4.1, and 50.1 – 50.6 are also independently deficient and further objection free responses must be served. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300.)
The court also awards monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the sum of $532.50 on this motion, which comes from $225/hr. x 2.1 hr. + $60 fee = $532.50. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(d).) The lowered amount comes from no opposition/reply briefs being filed and the appearance time being split among all five motions.
B) Special Interrogatories
Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories nos. 1 – 21 are deficient and further objection free responses must be served. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300.)
The court also awards monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the sum of $532.50 on this motion. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(d).)
C) Requests for Production
Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to requests for production is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production nos. 1 – 8; 9-12; 13- 19; 22; 31; 32; 34; and 37 are deficient and further objection free responses must be served. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310.) There also does not appear to have been any responsive documents identified or served with the responses.
The court also awards monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the sum of $532.50 on this motion. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310(h).)
The cumulative total monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on the three discovery motions is $1,597.50.
D) Demurrer
Defendant’s unopposed demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) is SUSTAINED.
The FAC is uncertain and fails to plead sufficient facts against Defendant. (Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10(e) and (f).) As with the original complaint, the FAC is largely unintelligible, contains causes of action which are not valid as titled, and contains causes of action for which Plaintiff appears to lack standing.
As to cause of action (“COA”) no. 1 for breach of contract, the COA does not indicate any duties or obligations between the parties or
any breaches thereof. The purported contract is largely illegible, and Plaintiff has not put forth the terms of the agreement between the parties or how Defendant breached said contract. It also appears at least one of the contracts may have been between Defendant and HUD/FHA, and not Plaintiff. (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299, 307.) There are insufficient facts to support this COA and it is uncertain.
As to COA no. 2 for false advertising, it COA, unclear how any of the purported advertising was false and how Plaintiff was damaged by the alleged false advertising. (Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1545, 1554.)
As to COA no. 3 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff failed to allege any specific acts of extreme or outrageous conduct on the part of Defendant or how any of Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms were the result of actions by Defendant. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 1035, 1050.)
Plaintiff’s COA no. 4 for ‘clinical negligence’ appears to be a COA for medical malpractice. There are no facts supporting any medical care which Defendant was required to provide or provided to Plaintiff which fell below the standard of care in the care providing community or which caused injury to Plaintiff. (Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.) It also appears Defendant was a provider of residential services and not medical services, so there is a question of duty.
As to COA no. 5, Plaintiff alleged no circumstances suggesting discriminatory motive or actions on the part Defendant. (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 317, 355.)
As the FAC does not plead sufficient facts to support any of the COA and it is uncertain, the demurrer is sustained in its entirety.
E) Motion to Strike
Defendant’s unopposed motion to strike is MOOT based on the demurrer being sustained.
Plaintiff is given one final leave to file an amended complaint within 15 days of written notice of the ruling. Plaintiff’s further responses to interrogatories and requests for production, as well as monetary sanctions, are also due within 15 days of written notice of the ruling.
Defendant to give notice. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21