On September 24, 2007 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
and
for (Breach of Contract/Warranty)
in the District Court of Sacramento County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 01/03/2011 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Kevin Culhane
CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
CASE NO: 07AS04450 CASE INIT.DATE: 09/24/2007
CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: ,6110617
EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion
MOVING PARTY: Richard Kirk Ruybalid
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery -Verified Responses from Pltf Rodney
Abbott, 12/06/2010
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1. Form 2. Production of Documents 3. Admissions
(Florentine Abbott)
TENTATIVE RULING
Moving party has withdrawn the motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and requests for
production. The motion to have admissions deemed admitted is denied.
Defendants are correct that the 45 day rule does not apply as the responses were unverified. However,
the motion is untimely because discovery is closed and has been closed since the initial trial date of May
11, 2009. (It was reopened for limited purposes not germane to this motion on July 20, 2009.)
Defendants contend that plaintiffs promised them several times that verifications would be provided,
most recently on September 27, 2010. Therefore plaintiffs should be estopped from arguing the motion
is untimely. This contention is not convincing and does not explain why defendants did not file this
motion before the discovery cutoff date.
Defendants are sanctioned $800.00 (four hours) for filing a motion without substantial justification and
requiring plaintiffs to incur the costs of opposing it. Sanctions shall be paid by February 3, 2011. If
sanctions are not paid by the due date, prevailing party may submit a formal order for enforcement
purposes Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4 608, 610.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
DATE: 01/03/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 53 Calendar No.
Document Filed Date
January 03, 2011
Case Filing Date
September 24, 2007
Category
(Breach of Contract/Warranty)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 01/03/2011 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: 53 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Kevin Culhane CLERK: E. Brown REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: CASE NO: 07AS04450 CASE INIT.DATE: 09/24/2007 CASE TITLE: Rodney Abbott, et al vs. Ronald Paul Britschgi, et al CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: ,6110617 EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion MOVING PARTY: Richard Kirk Ruybalid CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery -Verified Responses from Pltf Rodney Abbott, 12/06/2010 APPEARANCES Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1. Form 2. Production of Documents 3. Admissions (Florentine Abbott) TENTATIVE RULING Moving party has withdrawn the motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and requests for production. The motion to have admissions deemed admitted is denied. Defendants are correct that the 45 day rule does not apply as the responses were unverified. However, the motion is untimely because discovery is closed and has been closed since the initial trial date of May 11, 2009. (It was reopened for limited purposes not germane to this motion on July 20, 2009.) Defendants contend that plaintiffs promised them several times that verifications would be provided, most recently on September 27, 2010. Therefore plaintiffs should be estopped from arguing the motion is untimely. This contention is not convincing and does not explain why defendants did not file this motion before the discovery cutoff date. Defendants are sanctioned $800.00 (four hours) for filing a motion without substantial justification and requiring plaintiffs to incur the costs of opposing it. Sanctions shall be paid by February 3, 2011. If sanctions are not paid by the due date, prevailing party may submit a formal order for enforcement purposes Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4 608, 610. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. COURT RULING There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling. DATE: 01/03/2011 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 53 Calendar No.