DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV04228·santabarbara·Civil·Civil Law & Motion
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield

Motions to Compel

Hearing date
Jun 3, 2026
Department
N/A
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffEnzo Carlos
PlaintiffSusana Perez
DefendantAngela Catherine Canfield

Attorneys

Monica Roblesfor Plaintiff
Jennifer Tsengfor Defendant
H. Daniel Burrowsfor Defendant
Summer Masseyfor Defendant

Ruling

Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/03/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel Tentative Ruling Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Monica Robles. Attorneys for Defendant: Jennifer Tseng, H. Daniel Burrows, Summer Massey. Issue Motions to Compel

These are two motions to compel compliance with deposition subpoenas issued to Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, and California Managed Imaging Medical Group, respectively. No opposition or other response has been filed. Both motions attach the respective deposition subpoenas. Neither motion attaches a completed or signed proof of service as to a deposition subpoena. Both proofs of service check contradictory boxes as to the person serving, stating that the person serving the subpoena is both a registered California process server and not a registered California process server. In the absence of proof that either deposition subpoena was served on the respective deponent, both motions are denied without prejudice. The Trial Date of 11/4/26 is confirmed.

Tentative Ruling: Regina Ruiz et al vs St. Vincent's Institution et al Tentative Ruling: Regina Ruiz et al vs St. Vincent's Institution et al

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share