DAVIDSON VS DC & SONS, LLC

6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME HEARING RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM RALLIS VS CITY OF PALM DEFENDANT PARADIES CVPS2400788 SPRINGS LAGARDERE@PSP, LLC TO PLAINTIFFS’FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling, motion is MOOT.

7. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME HEARING RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DAVIDSON VS DC & SONS, FURTHER RESPONSES TO

LLC DISCOVERY AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY JOSHUA DAVIDSON Tentative Ruling:

Demand for Production of Documents: Where a response to an inspection demand has been made, but the demanding party is not satisfied with the response, the remedy is a motion to compel further responses. (CCP §2031.310.) This motion must be served within 45 days after service of a verified response (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery or fax or electronically; see CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(3), 1013). Otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response to the CCP § 2031.010 demand. (CCP §§ 2031.310(c), 2016.050; see Sperber v.

Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 745.) The 45-day time limit is mandatory and “jurisdictional,” meaning the court has no authority to grant a late motion. (Sexton v. Sup. Ct. (Mullikin Med. Ctr.) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The 45-day deadline runs from the date the verified response is served, not from the date originally set for production or inspection. (CCP §2031.310(c); Standon Co., Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Kim) (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 902.) The deadline may be extended by written stipulation of the parties. (CCP §2031.310(c).)

Plaintiff served Defendants with discovery on July 29, 2025. Defendants submitted verified Second Amended Responses to the Demand for Production of Documents on December 18, 2025. The 45-day time limit ran from this date. Plaintiff’s deadline to file a Motion to Compel was February 2, 2026. Plaintiff’s motion was not filed until April 10, 2026. There is no evidence the parties agreed to an extension of Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel. (Sotelo Decl. ¶3.)

Requests for Admission: A motion to compel further responses to requests for admission must be made within 45 days after service of the verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. Otherwise, the right to compel further responses is waived. (CCP §§2033.290(c), 2016.050.) The parties may stipulate to an extension. (CCP §2033.290(c).)

Plaintiff propounded the Requests for Admission on Callender and Delaney on July 29, 2025. Callender and Delaney submitted verified responses on September 3, 2025, and verified amended responses on November 13, 2025. (Motion Exhibits 7-8, 12-13.) The 45-day time limit ran from this date. Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel further responses was December 29, 2025. There is no evidence the parties agreed to an extension of Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel. (Sotelo Decl. ¶3.)

Form Interrogatories: To compel further responses to interrogatories, a notice of motion to compel must be served within 45 days after verified responses, or any verified supplemental responses, were served, unless the parties agree in writing to extend the time. (CCP §2030.300(c).)

Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories – Employment Law on Defendants Callender and Delaney on July 29, 2025. Defendants submitted verified responses on September 3, 2025. Defendants provided supplemental verified amended responses on November 13, 2025. (Motion Exhibits 9-10, 14-15.) The 45-day time limit ran from this date. Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel further responses was December 29, 2025. There is no evidence the parties agreed to an extension of Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel. (Sotelo Decl. ¶3.)

A pro per litigant is held to the “same restrictive procedural rules as an attorney.” (Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193.) Thus, Plaintiff’s status as a self-represented litigation does not absolve him of the strict 45-day time limit to bring a motion to compel further discovery responses.

Motion to Compel DENIED in its entirety.

Mandatory Settlement Conference confirmed for 6.09.26.

8. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME KHOURI VS FISHER MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST AMENDED CVPS2507288 INDUSTRIES COMPLAINT OF RAID JACOB KHOURI Tentative Ruling: A court may, upon a motion, strike out any “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).) An allegation is considered irrelevant if it is not essential to the statement of a claim or if it is not pertinent to or supported by an otherwise sufficient claim. (Id. § 431.10(b).) A motion to strike is the proper vehicle to attack a prayer for punitive damages. (Truman v. Turning Point of Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) In ruling on a motion to strike, the court reads the allegations “as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume[s] their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

Negligence Per Se (Evid. Code § 669): The FAC’s first cause of action for negligence includes a theory of negligence per se under Evid. Code § 669. To establish negligence per se, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation; (2) the violation proximately caused death or injury; (3) the death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the plaintiff was “one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was