| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Enrique Aguilar's Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories General, Set One; Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories Construction, Set One
Stanislaus County -- Civil -- https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings May 15, 2026
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21: CV-25-003684 - KUMAR, PARMILA vs AGUILAR BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Enrique Aguilar's Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories General, Set One; and for Order Granting Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED and unopposed; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories Construction, Set One; and for Order Granting Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED and unopposed.
a) GRANTED, and unopposed. Defendant Enrique Aguilar failed to serve any responses to properly propounded interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) Because no timely responses were served, Defendant has waived all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) Defendant shall serve verified responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within 20 days of service of this order. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded sanctions in the amount of $435 against Defendant Enrique Aguilar, payable within 20 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)
b) GRANTED, and unopposed. Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc. failed to serve any responses to properly propounded interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) Because no timely responses were served, Defendant has waived all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290
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?”
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: CV-25-011473 - PENALOZA, ROBERTO JR vs MERCER FOODS LLC - Defendant Mercer Foods LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Claims, and Stay Action - GRANTED.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, dismiss Plaintiff's class claims, and stay of the instant action pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.
Defendant Mercer Foods LLC dba Thrive Foods ("Thrive Foods") moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3 (the "FAA"), and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4, and also to dismiss Plaintiff's class claims, and to stay this action pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.
Plaintiff Robert Penaloza responds that the FAA does not apply and instead California law applies, that California law bars compelled arbitration of labor code wage claims, and that the arbitration agreement proffered by Defendant (the "Arbitration Agreement") is not valid and therefore cannot be enforced.
Whether the FAA applies to requires arbitration "The FAA applies to any 'contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce' that contains an arbitration provision." (Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 238 [quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2].)
"The party asserting FAA preemption bears the burden to present evidence establishing a contract with the arbitration provision affects [interstate commerce], and failure to do so renders the FAA inapplicable." (Ibid.)
"[T]he Supreme Court held that a contract involves commerce under section 2 of the FAA simply if the transaction, in