§Why CasetextPricing

Order After Hearing POS

undefined

7 Cited authorities

  1. Saxena v. Goffney

    159 Cal.App.4th 316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 233 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing verdict for plaintiff on battery claim where special verdict form did not require jury to make a finding of the absence of consent

  2. St. Mary v. Superior Court

    223 Cal.App.4th 762 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 65 times
    Noting that under section 2033.280, "a propounding party must take affirmative steps—by bringing a formal 'deemed admitted' motion—to have RFAs to which timely responses are not received deemed admitted"

  3. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 291 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Greyhound, the plaintiff in a personal injury suit arising from a car accident sought written statements that had been obtained from witnesses by the defendant's insurance adjusters and investigators.

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

    148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 70 times
    Addressing the filing of untimely interrogatory responses with a motion to compel pending

  5. Brigante v. Huang

    20 Cal.App.4th 1569 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 17 times

    Docket No. B048731. December 14, 1993. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C557753, Ronald M. Sohigian, Judge. COUNSEL Hornberger Criswell, Janik, Lester Dunn and Douglas Fee for Defendant and Appellant. Zimmerman Kahanowitch, Richard Kahanowitch and D. Alton Kelly for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION EPSTEIN, J. This is a case about the discretion of a trial court in ruling on a motion to deem matters admitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 All further code citations

  6. Heda v. Superior Court

    225 Cal.App.3d 525 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 12 times
    In Heda v. Superior Court, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d 525, the court concluded a plaintiff's statutory right to trial preference based on the defendant's ill health was outweighed by the defendant's right of privacy when it denied the plaintiff discovery of the defendant's medical records. (Id. at p. 529.)

  7. Leach v. Superior Court

    111 Cal.App.3d 902 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 11 times

    Docket No. 19929. November 7, 1980. COUNSEL Harrison Smith, D.D. Hughmanick, James L. Stoelker, John R. Mullen and Daniel McLoughlin for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Lee A. Lopez for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION PUGLIA, P.J. Petitioners are defendants in a quiet title action pending in the respondent superior court. By this application for a writ of mandate, they seek review of the trial court's order denying their motion to compel responses to interrogatories and for sanctions