§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Further Sanctions Against Defendants

Motion

12 Cited authorities

  1. Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc.

    201 Cal.App.4th 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 212 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming denial of section 473(b) motion where the declarant failed to include specific facts "which the court might have been able to assess in determining whether his failure to respond was actually excusable in the circumstances"

  2. New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (John Shanahan)

    168 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 176 times
    Reversing denial of motion to withdraw admission where mistake was "at least arguably excusable"

  3. Elliss v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

    218 Cal.App.4th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 114 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument "that compliance with the educational requirements of Business and Professions Code section 6540 is in every case a prerequisite to the recovery of paralegal fees" where federal cases cited by the defendant "do not bind us, and in any event they do not hold, and we have found no California state cases holding" such is required

  4. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants

    148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 75 times
    Addressing the filing of untimely interrogatory responses with a motion to compel pending

  5. Dodge, Warren Peters Ins. Serv. v. Riley

    105 Cal.App.4th 1414 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 76 times   2 Legal Analyses

    E031719 Filed February 5, 2003 Certified for Publication APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. RCV 060916, Ben T. Kayashima, Judge. Affirmed. The Greenberg Law Firm, Inc., and Raymond A. Greenberg for Defendant and Appellant James W. Riley. Law Offices of Perry R. Fredgant and Perry R. Fredgant for Defendants and Appellants Sandra L. McGovern, Patricia Anaya and Parthena Yorke. Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming Fitzgerald, Trenton J. Hill and Brian G. Mulherin for Plaintiff and

  6. Deyo v. Kilbourne

    84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 153 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Deyo, it was held that the materiality of questions propounded to a particular claim or a defense should be considered as a factor in assessing the propriety of entering a dismissal or a default judgment for failure to answer.

  7. Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

    124 Cal.App.4th 1315 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 65 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Biles, the plaintiff alleged that he had been exposed to asbestos fibers while working for a subcontractor assisting in the construction of defendant's oil refinery.

  8. Sexton v. Superior Court

    58 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying Civil Discovery Act: " We find it significant the 1986 amendments of sections 2030, subdivision and 2031, subdivision did not include the earlier provision of section 2030 subdivision . . . . The elimination of the pre-1986 law which gave authority to extend the time for making a motion to compel further answers indicates an intention by the Legislature not to vest any authority in the court to permit discovery that is not timely made[]"; Kohan v. Cohan 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971 [applying Civil Discovery Act: "Former section 2034, subdivision (d), by its terms applied to willfully failing to comply with discovery. That language has been omitted from section 2023, subdivision (b)(l)," "so current version does not require a misuse of the discovery process to be willful" before sanctions are imposed]; see also Reid v. Google 50 Cal.4th 512, 530 [where prior summary-judgment statute required objections to be made " either in writing or orally " and Legislature removed those words, "we can reasonably infer that the Legislature intended not to restrict the manner in which objections had to be presented"]

  9. Optronic Techs., Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Elec. Co.

    Case No.16-cv-06370-EJD (VKD) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Case No.16-cv-06370-EJD (VKD) 02-04-2019 OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Plaintiff, v. NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge ORDER RE APPLICATION OF CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION Re: Dkt. No. 208 Plaintiff Optronic Technologies ("Orion") moves for an order compelling defendants Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. ("Ningbo Sunny") and Sunny Optics, Inc. ("Sunny Optics") to produce otherwise privileged documents in the possession of defendants'

  10. Section 2031.310 - Motion for order compelling further response

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310   Cited 127 times
    Authorizing a motion to compel further response on the ground an objection is without merit

  11. Section 203 - Persons not eligible and qualified to be prospective jurors

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 203   Cited 80 times
    Stating that persons "convicted of malfeasance in office or a felony" are not "eligible and qualified to be prospective trial jurors"

  12. Rule 3.1345 - Format of discovery motions

    Cal. R. 3.1345   Cited 34 times

    (a) Separate statement required Except as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things; (4) To compel answers at a deposition;