MUNOZ MACIAS VS ARMANDO BAR & GRILL, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Second, as to the hours spent, the court finds spending 1.2 hours on preparing the complaint is excessive. A reasonable amount is.5 hours. The court also finds a clerical task in serving the complaint. The court also reduces the 3.0 hours for “Review Oppo / Draft / File Serve Reply / Hrg” to 2.0 hours The court reduces 1.9 hours total. As for costs, the court finds the costs to be supported and reasonable, and awards the full amount of $705.21.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees GRANTED in PART.

Plaintiff awarded $8,470 (15.4 hours at $550/hr) + $705.21 costs for total of $9,175.21.

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MUNOZ MACIAS VS ARMANDO BAR & GRILL, HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL

INC. A CALIFORNIA ARBITRATION CORPORATION Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. Hearing is continued to 10.27.26.

Plaintiff is permitted to file a supplemental opposition to the Reply considering the additional information contained in Defendant’s Reply. Any additional briefing filed by either party will result in sanctions. All papers relating to the motion to compel arbitration shall be served electronically on counsels’ email addresses of record. Defendant disregarded the court’s order on 8.10.26. Sanctions imposed in the amount of $250 as to attorney Juan M. Armenta, payable to the court in 30 days. Further violations shall result in additional sanctions.

5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME HEARING RE: MOTION TO COMPEL HERNANDEZ VS FURTHER RESPONSES TO AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CVPS2600927 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET CORPORATION ONE BY ERICA MARIA HERNANDEZ Tentative Ruling: A party may file a motion compelling further answers to RFPs if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (C.C.P. §2031.310.) The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to RFPs must set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (C.C.P. §2031.310(b)(1).)

The burden to establish “good cause,” is met by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117, citing Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 1996) ¶¶ 8:1495.6 to 8:1495.10.) “In the context of discovery, evidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.” (Glenfed Development Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1117.)

It is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. (C.C.P. §2017.010.) Once good