17-CIV-01189 ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS. KASEY LYNN KAHLER, ET AL.

ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA KASEY LYNN KAHLER
DAVID F. MAKKABI JOSEPH M. FRENCH

ALFREDO FIGUEROA’S MOTION FOR COMPELLING VERIFIED ANSWERS T0 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (C.C.P. §2033.240); SANCTIONS OF $785.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT AND/0R DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel verified answers to requests for admissions from Defendant Google is GRANTED.

To the extent Plaintiff also requests that the RFAs be deemed admitted, that request is DENIED, as it was not raised in the Notice of Motion.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED, in part, in the amount of $100.00. This is one of six separate motions filed by Plaintiff, which could have been consolidated into one. Rather than prepare six motions to compel, this issue likely could have been resolved by a simple phone call to defense counsel, which was never made. Accordingly, the court grants the motion for sanctions against Google in the amount of $100.00, to be paid to Plaintiff within 14 days of this Order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

October 25, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 4 Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG, Department 3 ________________________________________________________________________
9:00 LINE: 3 17-CIV-01189 ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS. KASEY LYNN KAHLER, ET AL.

ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA KASEY LYNN KAHLER
DAVID F. MAKKABI JOSEPH M. FRENCH

ALFREDO FIGUEROA’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING VERIFIED ANSWERS T0 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (C.C.P. §2033.240); SANCTIONS OF $785.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT AND/0R DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Kahler to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (RFAs), Set Two, and for sanctions, is GRANTED-IN-PART.

The motion to compel verified responses to the RFAs is GRANTED. Defendant Kahler argues the motion is moot because she served a verification on 10-1-18. The 10-1-18 is ineffective, because it was signed outside California and does not state that it is executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, and is therefore inadmissible hearsay. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2015.5; Kulshrestha v. First Union Comm’l Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 612618. Within seven days of this Order, Defendant Kahler shall serve a proper verification for the RFA responses.

To the extent Plaintiff also requests that the RFAs be deemed admitted, that request is DENIED, as it was not raised in the Notice of Motion.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED-IN-PART, in the amount of $100. This motion is one of six separate motions filed by Plaintiff, which could have been consolidated into one. The Court also questions the sincerity of Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts. Plaintiff’s counsel sent one letter to defense counsel requesting the verification. Rather than prepare six motions to compel, this issue likely could have been resolved by a simple phone call to defense counsel, which was never made. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for sanctions against Kahler in the amount of $100, to be paid to Plaintiff within 14 days of this Order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

October 25, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 5 Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG, Department 3 ________________________________________________________________________
9:00 LINE: 4 17-CIV-01189 ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS. KASEY LYNN KAHLER, ET AL.

ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA KASEY LYNN KAHLER
DAVID F. MAKKABI JOSEPH M. FRENCH

ALFREDO FIGUEROA AND MARIA DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ PEREZ’ MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $785.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC., AND/OR DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories from Defendant Google is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED, in part, in the amount of $100.00. This is one of six separate motions filed by Plaintiff, which could have been consolidated into one. Rather than prepare six motions to compel, this issue likely could have been resolved by a simple phone call to defense counsel, which was never made. Accordingly, the court grants the motion for sanctions against Google in the amount of $100.00, to be paid to Plaintiff within 14 days of this Order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

October 25, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 6 Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG, Department 3 ________________________________________________________________________
9:00 LINE: 5 17-CIV-01189 ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS. KASEY LYNN KAHLER, ET AL.

ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA KASEY LYNN KAHLER
DAVID F. MAKKABI JOSEPH M. FRENCH

ALFREDO FIGUEROA’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $785.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC., AND/OR DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further answers to interrogatories from Defendant Google is DENIED. Defendant served verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests on July 20. Plaintiff filed the motion to compel further answers on September 18, more than 45 days later. As a result, Plaintiffs have waived the right to compel further responses. CCP § 2030.300(c). This time limit is jurisdictional. Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further answers is denied for the additional reason that Plaintiff’s separate statement identifies Request for Admission No. 20 as the item in dispute. Plaintiff’s argument, however, which appears to be copied from the motion to compel further answers from Defendant WeDriveU, is directed at “permissive use,” a phrase used in Request for Admission No. 21, and does not address Request for Admission No. 20.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

October 25, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 7 Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG, Department 3 ________________________________________________________________________
9:00 LINE: 6 17-CIV-01189 ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS. KASEY LYNN KAHLER, ET AL.

ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA KASEY LYNN KAHLER
DAVID F. MAKKABI JOSEPH M. FRENCH

ALFREDO FIGUEROA’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $785.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC., AND/OR DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Alfredo Figueroa’s Motion to Compel Defendant WeDriveU, Inc. to provide further responses to form interrogatories, and for sanctions, is DENIED as untimely. Plaintiff did not file the motion within 45 days of service of the responses. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300 (45-day rule). Defendant served the responses on 7-20-18, and Plaintiff filed the motion on 9-18-18. This time limitation is jurisdictional. Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is also DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

October 25, 2018 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 8 Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG, Department 3 ________________________________________________________________________
9:00 LINE: 7 17-CIV-01189 ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA, ET AL. VS. KASEY LYNN KAHLER, ET AL

ALFREDO J. FIGUEROA KASEY LYNN KAHLER
DAVID F. MAKKABI JOSEPH M. FRENCH

ALFREDO FIGUEROA’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $785.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC., AND/0R DEFEND ANT’S ATTORNEY TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to requests for production from Defendant Google is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED, in part, in the amount of $100.00. This is one of six separate motions filed by Plaintiff, which could have been consolidated into one. Rather than prepare six motions to compel, this issue likely could have been resolved by a simple phone call to defense counsel, which was never made. Accordingly, the court grants the motion for sanctions against Google in the amount of $100.00, to be paid to Plaintiff within 14 days of this Order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.