Romel Ferrell v. Regus Management Group, LLC, dba Spaces Fairfax

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (a), emphasis added.)

Section 2030.290, on the other hand, applies to motions to compel initial responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290.)

Further, a motion to compel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 or 2030.300 may be brought post-judgment only as authorized by Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.010 to 708.030. Section 708.020 permits a Judgment Creditor to propound written interrogatories in the manner provided in Chapter 13, commencing with Section 2030.010, to aid in enforcement of a money judgment, and includes requirements specific to the post-judgment context. Absent the authorization under Section 708.020, the Civil Discovery Act does not apply to post-judgment discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2024.020 (parties are entitled to conclude discovery before trial.)

Motions should be premised on accurate authority. The Court will deny the motion to compel without prejudice to refiling under the correct Code provisions.

Conclusion

Judgment Creditor Sunset Stanley, LLC's Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions is denied without prejudice. Moving party to give notice.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Regus Management Group, LLC, dba Spaces Fairfax's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is denied. An Order to Show Cause re Striking the Complaint is set for October 15, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Dept. 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Analysis: On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff Romel Ferrell ("Plaintiff"), in propria persona, filed the instant Complaint against Defendant Regus Management Group, LLC, dba Spaces Fairfax (erroneously sued as "Spaces Fairfax") ("Defendant"). The Complaint lists causes of action for negligence, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Compl., P.8.)

On February 24, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which sought "an order enjoining defendant, and defendant's agents and employees, from interfering with the Plaintiff's network settings, restoring essential services, and ensuring compliance with the terms of the lease agreement." (See Motion for Preliminary Injunction, p. 1:26-28.)

On June 4, 2026, the Court granted Defendant's ex parte application to vacate the trial date, on the basis that the docket did not reflect proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. (Minute Order, 06/04/26.) Rather, the Proof of Service filed December 11, 2025 purported to document service of only the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and did not address the Summons and Complaint.

On the same day, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, which it served on Plaintiff by first-class and electronic mail. (Motion, p. 6.) No opposition to the Motion has been filed to date.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant, by filing the instant Motion to Compel, has made a general appearance in this case. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1014; Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1127, 1147 (general appearance occurs when a "defendant takes a part in the particular action which in some manner recognizes the authority of the court to proceed"). Service of the Summons and Complaint is therefore no longer at issue, because a general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons, and confers personal jurisdiction on the court. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 410.50(a).)

As to the merits of the Motion, Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement between Defendant and - as argued in the Motion - "Plaintiff's business, Neutron Research & Development LLC ("Neutron")." (Mot. at 3.) The Motion attaches in support a copy of the agreement relied upon (hereafter, "the Agreement"). (See Kay Decl., Exh. 1.) The Agreement is indeed a contract between Defendant and Neutron that contains an arbitration agreement. The Agreement is electronically signed by Romel Ferrell "on behalf of Neutron Research & Development LLC." (Id.)

The Court denies the motion to compel. Defendant does not explain why this Agreement permits the Court to compel Plaintiff in this action, Romel Ferrell, to arbitration. Plaintiff has sued Defendant in this case in Plaintiff's individual capacity. Plaintiff did not sign the Agreement in his individual capacity. Defendant has not shown why Plaintiff is bound. The Court will not enforce the Agreement against Plaintiff absent some showing why that is appropriate.

Defendant points briefly to arguments in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction that appear to suggest that Plaintiff is suing for breach of the Agreement or attempting to sue on behalf of Neutron. That argument, without more, does not meet Defendant's burden under under the FAA, which Defendant contends governs: "A party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden under the FAA to show (1) the existence of a valid, written agreement to arbitrate; and, if it exists, (2) that the agreement to arbitrate encompasses the dispute at issue." (Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (9th Cir. 2015) 785 F.3d 1320, 1323.)

Defendant's Motion notes that Plaintiff's Complaint does not attach any causes of action. (Mot., p. 3:3-8.) This is accurate, and problematic. Plaintiff filed this action using court form PLD-C-001. The form applies to breach of contract causes of action, however, Plaintiff does not attach or describe a contract. At paragraph 8, the Complaint leaves un-checked the box indicating a breach of contract cause of action, and instead states that Defendant is proceeding under causes of action for Negligence, Misrepresentation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. (Compl., P.8.)

The Complaint, however, does not attach any causes of action actually pleading any of those causes of action. The PLD-C-001 is explicit that "each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached." (Compl., P.8.) The Complaint is otherwise totally devoid of factual allegations from which a party could infer the basis for Plaintiff's claims.

Accordingly, because the Complaint is patently deficient, the Court is inclined to strike the Complaint on the Court's own motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 436(b). The Court sets for hearing an order to show cause why the Complaint should not be stricken on the date identified below. If Plaintiff appears and shows cause, the Court will strike the Complaint with leave to amend. If Plaintiff fails to appear or otherwise respond to this Order, the Court will strike the Complaint without leave to amend and Defendant may move to dismiss the case.

Conclusion

Defendant Regus Management Group, LLC, dba Spaces Fairfax's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is denied. An Order to Show Cause re Striking the Complaint is set for October 15, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Dept. 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 25STLC02565 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 26 TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Jonathan Mata's Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. Order to Show Cause Re: Why This Action Should Not Be Reclassified as an Unlimited Civil Action and Transferred to the Reclassification/Transfer Desk for Collection of Fees and Reassignment to an Unlimited Civil Court is scheduled for 09/16/2026, 2026 at 9:30 am in Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

ANALYSIS: On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff Jonathan Mata ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against Defendant Adrian Martinez ("Defendant"). The action alleges breach of an agreement with respect to real property and seeks damages and specific performance of the contract by conveying the real property to Plaintiff. (Compl., P.10a.) Defendant filed an Answer in propria persona on May 30, 2026. On June 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion is procedurally defective in important respects. First, t he Motion was served upon Defendant by mail on June 4, 2026, only 83 days before the hearing date. (Motion, p. 28.) The law requires that a motion for summary judgment must be brought upon at least 81 days' notice when personally served. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (a)(2).) An additional five calendar days are added for service by mail. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (a)(2).)

The court has no discretion to shorten the notice period because it relates to due process for the non-moving party. (McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 115-16.) If an opposing party files an opposition on merits and makes no objection to the shortened notice, the defective service or shortened notice is waived. (Yanez v. Vasquez (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 6 [citing Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697].)

The court cannot simply continue the hearing date; the motion must be re-noticed with the full statutory notice period. ((Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1260-67.) When accounting for the 86 days required for mail service of the instant Motion, the last day for service was June 1, 2026. No opposition has