8 Cited authorities

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
Obregon v. Superior Court
67 Cal.App.4th 424 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 78 times
Reviewing court first determines "whether substantial evidence supports the factual basis on which the trial court acted," then determines whether the order to impose sanctions was an abuse of discretion "in light of those facts"
Townsend v. Superior Court
61 Cal.App.4th 1431 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 24 times
Docket No. B116602. March 10, 1998. Appeals from Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, No. 207853, Frank J. Ochoa, Judge. COUNSEL Joseph W. Fairfield for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Lori S. Carver, Mark E. Schiffman, Shapiro Miles, T. Robert Finlay, Myer, Paynter Fock, Erich E. Fock and Haws, Record, Williford Magnusson for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION STONE (S.J.), P.J. Here we determine that the requirement of informal resolution, as set forth in section 2025, subdivision
City of Fresno v. Superior Court
205 Cal.App.3d 1459 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) Cited 22 times
In City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1459 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 296], the defendant city failed to respond to an inspection demand.
Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court
14 Cal.App.4th 733 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 13 times
Discussing the history and scope of this provision
Moore v. Powell
70 Cal.App.3d 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) Cited 23 times
In Moore v. Powell (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 583 the appellate court observed that, "When a motion for change of venue has been granted by the transferor court, but the transferee court has not yet assumed jurisdiction, the transferor court has limited powers."
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
Pickwick Stages System v. Superior Court
138 Cal.App. 448 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934) Cited 16 times
In Pickwick the court concluded that a motion for a change of venue "operates as a supersedeas or stay of proceedings, and must be disposed of before any other steps can be taken."

Gietzen vs Goveia

8 Cited authorities

Addressing the filing of untimely interrogatory responses with a motion to compel pending

Reviewing court first determines "whether substantial evidence supports the factual basis on which the trial court acted," then determines whether the order to impose sanctions was an abuse of discretion "in light of those facts"

In City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1459 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 296], the defendant city failed to respond to an inspection demand.

Discussing the history and scope of this provision

In Moore v. Powell (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 583 the appellate court observed that, "When a motion for change of venue has been granted by the transferor court, but the transferee court has not yet assumed jurisdiction, the transferor court has limited powers."

In Pickwick the court concluded that a motion for a change of venue "operates as a supersedeas or stay of proceedings, and must be disposed of before any other steps can be taken."