DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV018126·sacramento·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing about 1 year agoCONTINUED

CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions

Hearing date
Jul 16, 2025
Department
53
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 3, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC
DefendantLOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC

Ruling

24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions as to Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25

SIP Address:

16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16113421868

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions as to Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC in Department 53

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions as to Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC scheduled for 07/16/2025 is continued to 09/03/2025 at 01:30 PM in Department 53 at Hall of Justice.

The Court’s docket reflects that, on May 19, 2025, the Court granted the motion of Defendants’ counsel to be relieved as counsel. The Minute Order provides that the Court will sign the proposed order, which did not include a box checked for the effective date that counsel is relieved. Further, the Court’s docket reflects that the Proposed Order was signed on July 14, 2025, noting that relief is not effective until the filing of the proof of service of the signed order. Accordingly, the Court finds that the status of Defendants’ legal representation leading up to the hearing date on this motion has been ambiguous in light of the May 19, 2025 Order, the lack of a signed further Order providing for the effective date until July 14, 2025, and the lack of filing of proof of service of the order.

Based on this ambiguity, the Court continues the pending motions and will provide time for Defendants to be served with a signed order granting the motion to be relieved as counsel and for filing of such proof of service. The Court also permits Defendants to oppose the present motion in accordance with the continued hearing date, and Plaintiff may file a reply to any such opposition, in accordance with the continued hearing date.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share