NAJAFI VS. VINCI
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Motion type
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
# Case Name Tentative
1. NAJAFI VS. VINCI 2025-01451991 MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Stacey Joel Safion’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff David Najafi is DENIED as moot considering the substitution of attorney filed on 5/21/26 substituting Rebekah Thomas as counsel. (ROA 45.)
2. LOKES VS. LOUIS 2023-01367818 1. MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Defendant Karl George Louis’ motion to compel a response from plaintiff Samanta Lokes’s to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories is DENIED.
The proof of service shows Defendant served the Supplemental Interrogatories and the instant Motion on Plaintiff who is appearing in pro per via email. There is no proof that Plaintiff consented to being served by electronic mail. Without express consent as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (c), service of the Supplemental Interrogatories and this Motion by electronic mail on Plaintiff was insufficient.
Moving Defendant to give notice.
2. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
Defendant Karl George Louis’ motion to compel a response from Plaintiff Samanta Lokes’s to Defendant’s Supplemental Request for Production of Documents and Things is DENIED.
The proof of service shows Defendant served the Supplemental Request for Production of Documents and Things and the instant Motion on Plaintiff who is appearing in pro per via email. There is no proof that Plaintiff consented to being served by electronic mail. Without express consent as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (c), service of the Supplemental Request for Production of Documents and Things and this Motion by electronic mail on Plaintiff was insufficient.
Moving Defendant to give notice.
3. FELTON VS. AI’S NEW YORK CAFÉ 2024-01423563 1. MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff Michael Felton’s motion to compel defendant Al’s New York CafØ to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory Nos. 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28, and 35 is GRANTED.
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?”