EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY v. HONEY PACIFICA LLC, et al.

good cause. Therefore, the Court denied leave to amend, finding that Gonzalez had failed to explain what new facts supported the amendment or why he could not have made the amendment earlier.

The Court rejected Gonzalez's claim that he recently discovered "that Delta Pacific Technologies LLC had been operating since December 3, 2024" because it bore no relation to the claims, and in any case, the complaint was clearly filed by Delta Pacific Technologies LLC.

In the instant motion, Gonzalez cites "entity misidentification" as a different circumstance warranting reconsideration. This is merely a rehash of the "Delta LLC" issue that the Court rejected in the underlying motion.

According to the complaint, Delta was founded by Ellen Atkins as Delta Pacific Technologies, Inc. (Compl. P. 1.) Plaintiff Delta Pacific Technologies, LLC is the successor entity. (Ibid.) There is no "misidentification" or "overlooked fact." This has been the allegation from the outset, and Delta LLC has always been the party of record.

There remains no valid explanation for Gonzalez's substantial delay in raising the proposed SACC or any explanation for why amendment is necessary. Gonzalez's skepticism as to the validity of the succession is not a basis for reconsideration. The purported "new" evidence, consisting of gas bills charged to Delta Pacific Technologies, Inc., has no bearing on the proposed amendments and does not justify the delay in seeking leave to amend.

In sum, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its order denying leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Cross-Complainant Frank Gonzalez's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. HONEY PACIFICA LLC, et al., Defendants. | Case No.: 25STCV30868 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendants' motions to compel responses to discovery (CRS# 6478, 4226) |

| | BACKGROUND

On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff Employers Assurance Company filed this action against Defendants Honey Pacifica LLC and Honey Pacifica Holdings LLC for breach of contract.

On June 22 and 24, 2026, Defendants filed the instant two motions to compel Plaintiff's responses to form interrogatories and requests for production. Plaintiff filed oppositions on July 31, 2026. Defendants filed replies on August 7, 2026.

LEGAL STANDARD

Discovery responses are due 30 days after service of the requests, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a).)

If a responding party fails to respond in time, the propounding party may move for an order compelling the responses or deeming matters admitted. (Id., Sec.Sec. 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b).) The responding party also waives all objections and the right to produce writings under section 2030.230. (Id., Sec.Sec. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendants served the subject requests on February 24, 2026. (Ardi Decl. P. 2.) Plaintiff did not serve responses by the deadline of March 26, 2026. (Id., P.P. 3-4.)

Plaintiff served responses after these motions were filed. (Aires Decl. P. 4.) Therefore, the motions are moot. The sufficiency of the responses should be addressed in a motion to compel further.

Sanctions are unwarranted as counsel's medical condition constitutes substantial justification. (Id., P. 3.)

CONCLUSION

Defendants' motions to compel responses are DENIED. Sanctions are denied. | Home -->)" -->