Louis Orozco v. Phillip Andrew Decker, et al.

Although the Court denies this motion, it is important to point out that in so doing the Court is not expressing any position on the viability, or not, of Sable's arguments with respect to prospective conduct. As this matter now sits, Sable is free to assert in a different action any claims that it may have based upon these new legal theories arising out of federal actions subsequent to the April 10 Orders and the filing of this action. Although declaratory relief is, by its nature, prospective relief, the allegations in the PTAC are sufficiently vague that any declaration issued by the Court on a broader basis would be advisory. The inappropriateness of the Court addressing by declaratory relief newly proposed conduct is further demonstrated by the complex and seemingly fast-changing legal landscape.

(C) Leave to Amend Sable's Answer to Commission Cross-Complaint Sable's proposed amended (and supplemental) answer to the Commission's FACC, on the other hand, raises different issues. Where Sable's SAC asserts claims arising out of the Commission's past conduct, the Commission's FACC asserts claims for permanent injunctive relief. The general rule is "that equity acts in injunctive proceedings upon the situation[] as it appears at the termination of litigation as distinguished from that at the time of or prior to the commencement of the action ...." (Mallon v.

City of Long Beach (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 178, 187.) The scope and limits of permanent injunctive relief sought by the Commission in its FACC may be affected by the new issues raised in the FAA. It is therefore appropriate to permit the pleading of such new matter by supplemental answer. The motion will be granted to permit the filing of the FAA. To the extent it is disputed that matter raised in the FAA constitutes a defense as a matter of law, those issues are best raised by appropriate motion rather than in addressing leave to amend.

(3) Remaining Issues Based upon the above discussion, there are no remaining issues for disposition in Sable's SAC against the Commission. This disposition renders moot Sable's motion to compel the deposition of Cassidy Teufel as to issues relevant to Sable's SAC. At the same time, there remain issues, at least including remedial issues, to be resolved by trial or otherwise as to the Commission's FACC against Sable. It is unclear whether the deposition of Cassidy Teufel is necessary or appropriate as to these remaining issues.

Tentative Ruling: Louis Orozco v. Phillip Andrew Decker, et al. Tentative Ruling: Louis Orozco v. Phillip Andrew Decker, et al. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/20/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Lous Orozco: Oliver A. Taillieu, Elizabeth A. Hernandez, Ashley M. Akhavan, BD&J P.C. For Defendants Phillip Andrew Decker and Unico Engineering, Inc.: Craig J. Rolfe, Lydecker, LLP RULING For the reasons set forth below, the motion of Defendant to compel Plaintiff to serve further responses to requests for admission Nos. 7,8, and 9 is granted. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to the requests for admission, without objections, no later than June 1, 2026. If any response to the requests for admissions is anything other than an unqualified admission, Plaintiff shall provide further responses to form interrogatory No. 17.1, without objections, no later than June 1, 2026.

Background

As alleged in the complaint of Plaintiff Louis Orozco:

On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff was on his bicycle traveling eastbound on Hollister Avenue when, at the same time and place, Phillip Andrew Decker, while in the course and scope of his employment with Unico Engineering Inc., (Unico) was operating a vehicle and exiting a driveway onto westbound Hollister Avenue. (Complaint, P. GN-1.) As Defendant Decker's vehicle turned onto Hollister Avenue, its left front corner struck the rear tire of Plaintiff's bicycle causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground and suffer severe injuries and damages. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed their complaint against Defendants Decker and Unico on March 11, 2025, alleging two causes of action: (1) general negligence; and (2) motor vehicle. On May 1, 2025, Defendants each and separately filed their answers to Plaintiff's complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On February 24, Decker filed a motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to set one requests for admission (RFAs), nos. 7 through 9, and a concurrently served form interrogatory (FI) no. 17.1 Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Analysis "Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention." (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.) "It is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act . . . that civil discovery be essentially self-executing." (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434.) "Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact.

A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.010, italics added.) As noted above, Decker seeks further responses to RFAs Nos. 7, 8, and 9. Those RFA's ask Plaintiff to admit: 7. "You were riding your bicycle in violation of California Vehicle Code Sec. 21650.1 immediately before the ACCIDENT occurred." 8. "You were riding your bicycle in violation of California Vehicle Code Sec. 21650.1 within five seconds before the ACCIDENT occurred." 9. "You were riding your bicycle in violation of California Vehicle Code Sec. 21650.1 at the time of the ACCIDENT." "A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of a highway, shall be operated in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway." (Veh.

Code, Sec. 21650.1.)

Plaintiff responded to each of the RFAs: "Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase 'in violation of.' Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion and it impermissibly seeks premature disclosure of expert witness testimony and work product, in violation and circumvention of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210, et seq. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff admits that he was riding his bicycle eastbound in the westbound bicycle lane of Hollister Avenue within [time frame] before the ACCIDENT occurred."

Plaintiff's objections are without merit. His primary argument is that RFAs do not require a responding party to concede a disputed legal conclusion. The argument is a misstatement of long-standing law. "[W]hen a party is served with a request for admission concerning a legal question properly raised in the pleadings he cannot object simply by asserting that the request calls for a conclusion of law. He should make the admission if he is able to do so and does not in good faith intend to contest the issue at trial, thereby ' "setting at rest a triable issue." ' [Citation.]

Otherwise he should set forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny the request. [Citation.]" (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 282.) "Requests for admission are not restricted to facts or documents, but apply to conclusions, opinions, and even legal questions." (City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 353.)

Plaintiff is required to either admit or deny each of the requests, rather than attempt to avoid providing a direct response. He will be ordered to provide further responses, without objection. To the extent any of the responses are anything other than an unqualified admission, Plaintiff will be ordered to provide a further response to FI No. 17.1. As no monetary sanctions were requested, none will be imposed.

Tentative Ruling: Louis Orozco v. Phillip Andrew Decker, et al. Tentative Ruling: Louis Orozco v. Phillip Andrew Decker, et al. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel (4) Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Louis Orozco: Olivier A. Taillieu, Elizabeth A. Hernandez, BD&J, P.C. For Defendants Phillip Andrew Decker and Unico Engineering, Inc.: Matthew Banashek, Michael W. Irving, Banashek Irving & McNutt, LLP RULING For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff to compel further responses to requests for admission, set two, to Defendant is granted.

On or before May 8, 2026, Defendant Phillip Andrew Decker shall serve verified, code compliant further responses to Plaintiff's set one requests for admission nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, and 34, without the objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege. For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff to compel further responses to for interrogatories, set two, to Defendant is granted. On or before May 8, 2026, Defendant Phillip Andrew Decker shall serve verified, code compliant further responses to Plaintiff's set one form interrogatory no. 17.1, as to requests for admission nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, and 34, without the objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege.

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set two, to Defendant Phillip Andrew Decker is ordered off-calendar. For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Defendant Phillip Andrew Decker to compel Plaintiff to serve further responses to requests for admission nos. 7, 8, and 9, and concurrently served form interrogatory no. 17.1, is continued to May 20, 2026. On or before April 29, 2026, Defendant shall pay filing and other fees in accordance with the Court's ruling herein.

On or before May 6, 2026, Defendant shall file and serve notice of payment of filing fees identifying the motion(s) for which fees have been paid and for which adjudication is sought.

Background

As alleged in the complaint of Plaintiff Louis Orozco: On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff was on his bicycle traveling eastbound on Hollister Avenue when, at the same time and place, Phillip Andrew Decker, while in the course and scope of his employment with Unico Engineering Inc., (Unico) was operating a vehicle and exiting a driveway onto westbound Hollister Avenue. (Complaint, P. GN-1.) As Defendant Decker's vehicle turned onto Hollister Avenue, its left front corner struck the rear tire of Plaintiff's bicycle causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground and suffer severe injuries and damages. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed their complaint against Defendants Decker and Unico on March 11, 2025, alleging two causes of action: (1) general negligence; and (2) motor vehicle.