On March 11, 2020 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Aguirre Claudio R.,
and
Buenrostro Osorio Maria Alma,
Osorio Jose A.,
for Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
North Valley District, Chatsworth Courthouse, Department F49
20CHCV00185 September 20, 2021
CLAUDIO R. AGUIRRE vs JOSE A. OSORIO, et al. 8:30 AM
Judge: Honorable Stephen P. Pfahler CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: Adrina Chebishyan ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: Patricia Aranda Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Robin Paley (Telephonic)
For Defendant(s): Mark Brifman (Telephonic)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
The matter is called for hearing.
The Court reads and considers the moving papers in support of, in opposition to and reply to the
Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.
Parties submit to the Court's Tentative Ruling in open court, and the Court adopts its tentative
ruling as its final ruling as follows:
RULING: Granted.
Plaintiff, Claudio Aguirre moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (set one),
numbers 1-18. Defendant in a one day late opposition contends that responses were served and
the motion is only brought due to the non-payment of monetary sanctions. Plaintiff in reply
reiterates the insufficiency of the responses.
The court previously granted an order to compel further responses on August 5, 2021. It appears
that Defendants served responses on either June 15 or July 13, with a courtesy copy delivered on
August 4—the day before the August 5, 2021 hearing.
The court ruling on August 5, 2021 granted the motion on grounds that the objections served
were invalid and evasive. The responses presented to the court in that motion consisted entirely
of objections. Plaintiff now presents a new set of responses in the separate statement showing no
objections, but three sentences repeated 18 times: “Defendants believe that they have paid the
Plaintiff in full. The parties hereto. The Bill of Sale; The allegations of the complaint.”
The court will not revisit the August 5, 2021 order. As for the current responses, once again, the
court finds the responses insufficient and non-responsive. Defendant is ordered to serve verified
responses to Special Interrogatories, without objections, within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
Minute Order Page 1 of 2
Document Filed Date
September 20, 2021
Case Filing Date
March 11, 2020
Category
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 03/07/2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division North Valley District, Chatsworth Courthouse, Department F49 20CHCV00185 September 20, 2021 CLAUDIO R. AGUIRRE vs JOSE A. OSORIO, et al. 8:30 AM Judge: Honorable Stephen P. Pfahler CSR: None Judicial Assistant: Adrina Chebishyan ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: Patricia Aranda Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Robin Paley (Telephonic) For Defendant(s): Mark Brifman (Telephonic) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses The matter is called for hearing. The Court reads and considers the moving papers in support of, in opposition to and reply to the Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. Parties submit to the Court's Tentative Ruling in open court, and the Court adopts its tentative ruling as its final ruling as follows: RULING: Granted. Plaintiff, Claudio Aguirre moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (set one), numbers 1-18. Defendant in a one day late opposition contends that responses were served and the motion is only brought due to the non-payment of monetary sanctions. Plaintiff in reply reiterates the insufficiency of the responses. The court previously granted an order to compel further responses on August 5, 2021. It appears that Defendants served responses on either June 15 or July 13, with a courtesy copy delivered on August 4—the day before the August 5, 2021 hearing. The court ruling on August 5, 2021 granted the motion on grounds that the objections served were invalid and evasive. The responses presented to the court in that motion consisted entirely of objections. Plaintiff now presents a new set of responses in the separate statement showing no objections, but three sentences repeated 18 times: “Defendants believe that they have paid the Plaintiff in full. The parties hereto. The Bill of Sale; The allegations of the complaint.” The court will not revisit the August 5, 2021 order. As for the current responses, once again, the court finds the responses insufficient and non-responsive. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to Special Interrogatories, without objections, within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ Minute Order Page 1 of 2