Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Production; Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
specific federal anti-alienation provision under 42 U.S.C. § 407 that courts have held shields those funds from levy even after deposit into a bank account. Kilker v. Stillman (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 320. SBA disaster loans— including those made under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act—lack a comparable statutory exemption from creditor execution.
The federal statutes governing SBA disaster loans under 15 U.S.C. § 636 and disaster assistance under 42 U.S.C. § 5174 do not contain language prohibiting levy, garnishment, or execution by private creditors. While these statutes authorize the federal government to provide disaster relief loans and assistance to individuals and businesses affected by presidentially declared disasters, they do not create an exemption from state law creditor remedies. California’s exemption statutes similarly do not list federal disaster relief funds as exempt property.
Ca. Civ. Pro. Section 704.070. Without a federal anti-alienation provision or a California statutory exemption specifically protecting disaster loan proceeds, such funds deposited into a business bank account remain subject to levy under California’s general rule that all property of the judgment debtor is subject to enforcement of a money judgment except as otherwise provided by law. Ca. Civ. Pro. Section 695.010.
Uplift Law, PC shall give notice.
2 Vazirnia vs. Zandian
2023-01353637 1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
2. Motion to Compel Production 3. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions
Plaintiff Soha Vazirnia, individually and as trustee of the Reza B. Hosseini and Soha Vazirnia Revocable Trust dated June 12, 2019’s motion to compel further responses to
her first sets of special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300
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?”
Defendant Amira Vazirnia is ORDERED to provide verified further responses without objections, which shall include the simultaneous production of any and all responsive documents, to the following discovery requests within 14 days of notice:
(1) Plaintiff’s first set of special interrogatories, Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, 19, and 22-25; (2) Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admission, Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 11; and (3) Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production, Nos. 2, 4, 16, 35, and 36.
The motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for requests for production Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 14. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) These requests are egregiously overbroad and include requests for communications without any limitation whatsoever as to subject matter, and requests for any and all documents concerning every single possible item of personal property in the subject residential real property from 1/1/19 to date, regardless of whether plaintiff is claiming that it belongs to her and/or the trust.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for the massive fishing expedition that these requests demand. Plaintiff should know what property belongs to her and/or the trust, and what property the defendants allegedly stole, and in fact has already identified/described many of the subject belongings in an exhibit attached to her complaint. Plaintiff must properly limit her discovery to what is relevant to the subject matter involved and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [good cause requirement]; Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 [good cause]; Calcor Space Facility,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [motion must be supported by factual evidence by way of declarations setting forth specific facts justifying each category of materials sought to be produced]; see also Clark Decl., in passim; Compl. ¶¶ 11-16, Ex. 2.)
Sanctions are DENIED as plaintiff has failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 [“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.”].)
Plaintiff shall give notice.
3 Satar vs. BMW of North America, LLC
2021-01192103
Motion to Strike or Tax Costs
Defendant BMW of North America, LLC’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Code of Civil Procedure § 1032, subdivision (b) states: “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5 sets forth the items that are allowable as costs. Items not mentioned in section 1033.5 may be allowed or denied in the court’s discretion Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c) states that allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount and “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.”
“If items on their face appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.” (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.) Once the opposing party makes such a showing, in support of a