| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motions to Compel Further Responses
Inc's account were entered in the ordinary course of business, and are correct. The outstanding principal balance on the job account for the Property is $5,619.80 after giving credit for the $4,100.02 payment identified in the Petition." (Elloso Decl., ¶ 6.)
"To the best of my knowledge, Golden State charged My Windows And Doors Contractor Inc a fair and reasonable price for the materials it sold for incorporation into the work of improvement at the Property because the prices charged were their then fair-market value." (Elloso, Decl., ¶ 7.)
"To the best of my knowledge, all oi the materials identified in the invoices were incorporated into the work of improvch1ent at the Property. Victor Villela, the principal (and 'Owner,' according to Mr. Villela) of My Windows and Doors Contractor Inc, told me this over the telephone a number of times, copied me on an October 30, 2025, email stating as much, and provided me photos of materials in the Property Mr. Villela claims he purchased from Golden State. I believe him because the photos of materials appear to match the materials identified in the invoices attached hereto collectively as Exhibit '5.'
True and correct copies of the aforementioned October 30, 2025 email admitting that My Windows and Doors Contractor Inc purchased the materials appearing in the unpaid invoices from Golden State on credit and used them at the Property but had yet to pay Golden State for them, and photos of the materials at the Property are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit '7.' " (Elloso Decl., ¶ 8 & Exhs. 5, 7.)
Clearly there is a dispute regarding whether there is erroneous information contained in a claim of lien. As stated by the above authority, that alone will not invalidate the lien. Rather, it must be shown that: (1) The claim of lien was made with intent to defraud, or (2) An innocent third party, without notice, actual or constructive, became the bona fide owner of the property after recordation of the claim of lien, and the claim of lien was so deficient that it did not put the party on further inquiry in any manner, or (3) Respondent willfully included in the claim of lien labor, services, equipment, or materials not furnished for the property described in the claim.
There is no evidence presented that Respondent intended to defraud Petitioner or willfully included, in the claim of lien, labor, services, equipment, or materials not furnished for the property. There are no other grounds that Petitioner sets forth for granting the requested relief. As such, the petition fails and will be denied. As the petition is being denied for the above reasons, the court declines to address Respondent's additional arguments.
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?”
(1) For all reasons stated herein, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one (filed on December 24, 2025), is granted as to interrogatory Nos. 27, 28, 33, and 34, and denied as to interrogatory No.
35. Plaintiff shall serve supplemental responses to interrogatory Nos. 27, 28, 33, and 34 on or before March 25, 2026. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions.
(2) For all reasons stated herein, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one (filed on January 26, 2026), is denied. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions.
Background
On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff Claudia Zoghlami filed a complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (AHM), alleging three causes of action for: (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act - breach of express warranty; (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act - breach of implied warranty; and (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b).
As alleged in the complaint: On January 21, 2023, Plaintiff purchased a 2023 Honda CR-V (Vehicle) from an authorized dealership of AHM. (Compl., ¶¶ 8 & 32.) The sale was accompanied by express warranties. (Ibid.) The Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with defects and nonconformities in its electrical, electronics, and infotainment systems. (Compl., ¶¶ 9, 22 & 35-37.) Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle to an authorized AHM repair facility on multiple occasions for repair but AHM's authorized facility was unable to conform the Vehicle to the warranty. (Compl., ¶¶ 23-26 & 48-49.)
On July 18, 2025, AHM served its first set of special interrogatories. (Declaration of Christina Burk ISO Dec. 24 Motion to Compel [First Burk Decl.], ¶ 3.) On September 9, 2025, Plaintiff served her original responses to these special interrogatories (Original Responses). (First Burk Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) On November 26, 2025, Plaintiff served amended responses to these special interrogatories (Amended Responses). (Declaration of Christina Burk ISO Jan. 26 Motion to Compel [Second Burk Decl.], ¶ 7, Ex. B.)
On December 24, 2025, AHM filed a motion seeking to compel further responses to interrogatory Nos. 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35 (First Motion), as to Plaintiff's Original Responses. The First Motion requests monetary sanctions.
On January 26, 2026, AHM filed a second motion to compel further responses to interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 7 through 20, and 29 through 32 (Second Motion), as to the Amended Responses. The Second Motion requests monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes both the First Motion and Second Motion.
Analysis
(1) Meet and Confer Requirement
Plaintiff argues that AHM failed to support its motions with compliant meet and confer declarations. As discussed below, the Court agrees with Plaintiff in part. A motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories "shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) "A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a).) The burden to file a compliant meet and confer declaration is on the moving party. (See Evid. Code, § 500.)
As to the First Motion pertaining to interrogatory Nos. 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35, the parties held a meet and confer conference as to the Original Responses on November 6, 2025. (First Burk Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff subsequently served Amended Responses, but the Amended Responses to these specific interrogatories appear identical or almost identical to the Original Responses. (Compare First Burk Decl., Ex. A with Second Burk Decl., Ex. B.) AHM's meet and confer declaration meets the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 as to the First Motion. (See First Burk Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.) These issues appear to have been discussed in good faith.
As to the Second Motion, AHM admits that no meet and confer conference was held. (Second Burk Decl., ¶ 9 ["The parties were not able to telephonically meet and confer as discussed before AHM's deadline to file this motion."].) Plaintiff's Amended Responses provided additional responsive information to a number of the interrogatories at issue in the Second Motion. (Compare First Burk Decl., Ex. A with Second Burk Decl., Ex. B.) AHM did not carry its burden to demonstrate a "reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a); see also Second Burk Decl., ¶ 9.) The Court will deny the Second Motion on this basis.
(2) Legal Standards Applicable to the First Motion
"A trial Court must be mindful of the Legislature's preference for discovery over trial by surprise, [and] must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery ...." (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540 (Williams).) "Unless otherwise limited by order of the Court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
"The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following: "(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. "(2) An exercise of the party's option to produce writings. "(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a).) "Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) "If an interrogatory cannot be answered complete, it shall be answered to the extent possible." (Id., subd. (b).) A party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if an answer is evasive or incomplete or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
(3) Interrogatory Nos. 27 and 28
Interrogatory Nos. 27 and 28 ask Plaintiff to identify each time Plaintiff communicated with AHM, including the date, medium, and content of the communication, and persons involved in the communication. (Sep. Stat., Nos. 27-28.) This information is discoverable because Plaintiff's communications with AHM forms part of the basis for her claims in this action. (See Compl., ¶¶ 8, 9, 17, 18, 23-25, 47-49; Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
Addressing Plaintiff's objections, although these interrogatories do have subparts as phrased, the subparts appear to provide clarification to the term "identify" as opposed to asking multiple separate questions. Interrogatory Nos. 27 and 28 are not so vague that Plaintiff cannot respond. Even "where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response." (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 (Devo).)
Moreover, even if the information is equally available to AHM, AHM is still entitled to a response if the information is within Plaintiff's knowledge and control. "If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) "[N]o rule or authority is cited which authorizes refusal to answer an interrogatory simply upon the ground that the answer is known to the party seeking the information." (Singer v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318, 324.)
"The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought." (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Plaintiff did not support her burden objection.
There does not appear to be any privileges applicable to information requested by interrogatory Nos. 27 and 28. In any event, Plaintiff did not support these objections with facts. "The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship." (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.) "An attorney seeking to invoke work product protection has the burden to show that materials are either absolute or qualified work product." (Southern California Edison Co. v. Superior Court (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 573, 585.)
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant AHM's motion to compel as to interrogatory Nos. 27 and 28. Plaintiff may limit her supplemental responses to the timeframe at issue in her complaint (on or after January 1, 2023). If any information is withheld on the basis of privilege, Plaintiff shall provide a privilege log with sufficient information to permit AHM to evaluate the claim of privilege. Plaintiff's objections to these interrogatories are otherwise overruled.
(4) Interrogatory Nos. 33 and 34
Interrogatory No. 33 requests the identity of persons with knowledge of facts supporting Plaintiff's claim for civil penalties. (Sep. Stat., No. 33.) Plaintiff largely asserts the same objections she asserted to interrogatory Nos. 27 and 28, and then responds, "without waiving forgoing objections ... Plaintiff." (Ibid.) Interrogatory No. 34 requests the identity of documents that Plaintiff contends support Plaintiff's claim for civil penalties. (Sep. Stat., No. 34.) Plaintiff largely asserts the same objections and then responds, "without waiving forgoing objections ... None." (Ibid.)
AHM argues that Plaintiff must respond to these interrogatories without objection. The Court agrees with AHM in part. The witnesses and documents supporting Plaintiff's claims for civil penalties are discoverable. (See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 540; Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The Court will require that Plaintiff confirm in supplemental responses that Plaintiff made reasonable and good faith efforts to identify the witnesses and documents as requested by interrogatory Nos. 33 and 34, and that she has provided a response based on such efforts. "If a person cannot furnish details, he should set forth the efforts made to secure the information." (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 782.)
If any information is withheld on the basis of privilege, Plaintiff shall provide a privilege log with sufficient information to permit AHM to evaluate the claim of privilege. Plaintiff's objections are otherwise overruled.
(5) Interrogatory No. 35
Interrogatory No. 35 asks if Plaintiff is still in possession of the Vehicle. (Sep. Stat., No. 35.) AHM largely asserts the same objections and then responds, "without waiving forgoing objections ... Plaintiff possesses the SUBJECT VEHICLE." (Ibid.) Plaintiff has responded to interrogatory No. 35 and confirmed she still possesses the Vehicle. This issue does not appear to be in dispute. The Court will deny the motion as to interrogatory No. 35.