On August 14, 2017 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lam Bob,
Wang Jialin,
and
Fidel Alejo Chris,
Saballos Jose Edgardo,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
ae
a ar Super Court of California
ty of Los Angeles
MAY 17 2018
icer/Glerk
SherriR. C ‘arter, Executive Off
7: , Deputy
~Tiliana Plazola
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -
CENTRAL DISTRICT
) Case No.: BC672247
JIALIN WANG, ET AL.,
EeeeeFPE] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
10 Plaintiff(s), TO COMPEL
11 vs. Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
12 JOSE EDGARDO SABALLOS, ET AL., May 17, 2018
13 Defendant(s).
14
15
16 Plaintiffs filed and served a total of four discovery motions in this action. There are two plaintiffs
17 and two defendants in the action, and each motion concerns a set of form interrogatories propounded by
18 one of the two plaintiffs on one of the two defendants.
19
20 Plaintiffs provide evidence, in their motions, that they propounded form interrogatories on
21 Defendants on 10/02/17. Plaintiffs provide evidence that they sent a meet and confer letter on 2/14/18,
22 but Defendants did not respond to the letter or serve responses.
23
Opposition to the motions was due on or before 5/04/18. Defendants failed to file timely
be
125 Opposition to the motions. The motions are therefore granted. To the extent Defendants have not
-1
Document Filed Date
May 17, 2018
Case Filing Date
August 14, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ae a ar Super Court of California ty of Los Angeles MAY 17 2018 icer/Glerk SherriR. C ‘arter, Executive Off 7: , Deputy ~Tiliana Plazola SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ) Case No.: BC672247 JIALIN WANG, ET AL., EeeeeFPE] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS 10 Plaintiff(s), TO COMPEL 11 vs. Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. 12 JOSE EDGARDO SABALLOS, ET AL., May 17, 2018 13 Defendant(s). 14 15 16 Plaintiffs filed and served a total of four discovery motions in this action. There are two plaintiffs 17 and two defendants in the action, and each motion concerns a set of form interrogatories propounded by 18 one of the two plaintiffs on one of the two defendants. 19 20 Plaintiffs provide evidence, in their motions, that they propounded form interrogatories on 21 Defendants on 10/02/17. Plaintiffs provide evidence that they sent a meet and confer letter on 2/14/18, 22 but Defendants did not respond to the letter or serve responses. 23 Opposition to the motions was due on or before 5/04/18. Defendants failed to file timely be 125 Opposition to the motions. The motions are therefore granted. To the extent Defendants have not -1