Costantino v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al.
Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
The court "shall impose" sanctions of $2,500 against the Defendant's attorney to be paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements unless good cause is shown. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26 (j)(1).)
III. CONCLUSION
Defendant did not file an opposition showing good cause. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to comply with the requirement to serve initial disclosures within 15 days. Defendant's counsel, Sweeney APC, is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,500 to Plaintiff within 15 days.
Costantino v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al. Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Sec. 871.26 (3121)
There is no evidence that Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant. Therefore, the motion is taken off calendar.
Case Number: 25STCV31442 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: 414
25STCV31442 Nicole Y. Jackson v. Zeledon, et al. Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN PERMISSION AS PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (5404)
I. BACKGROUND
The first amended complaint filed January 8, 2026 alleges claims against Defendants, former landlords, alleging habitability and nuisance claims arising from her tenancy.
On March 2, 2026, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss the action for Plaintiff's failure to obtain permission as a vexatious litigant prior to filing this litigation. Plaintiff was served with the motion by did not file an opposition.
II. DISCUSSION
"Nicole Y. Jackson" was deemed a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order in 19STCL02275 Nicole Jackson v. Los Angeles MTA on December 2, 2021 and in BS170641 Nicole Y. Jackson v. Aspire Public Schools on December 17, 2021. Both cases show Plaintiff's address as P.O. Box 783 Huntington Park, CA 90255. This is the same address shown on the Amended Complaint filed in this action.
Plaintiff filed this action on October 28, 2025, after the prefiling orders were entered.
Cited authorities
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?”