On June 18, 2018 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Sha, Solomon,
Sweet Production, Inc., A California Corporation,
and
Does 1 To 10, Inclusive,
Sha, Solomon,
for (07) Unlimited Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Case Number: 18-CIV-03110
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
SWEET PRODUCTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs. 18-CIV-03110
SOLOMON SHA, et al
07/02/2019 9:00 AM
Motion to Compel
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Davis, III, Leland Location: Courtroom 4C
Courtroom Clerk: Sarai Goulart Courtroom Reporter: Annette Jaycox
Parties Present
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
- 9:00 Matter called.
No appearance by any parties herein or their counsel of record.
Case Events
- Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:;
DEFENDANT, SOLOMON SHA'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF SWEET
PRODUCTION, INC., DEEMING OBJECTIONS WAIVED, MONETARY SANCTIONS AND TERMINATING
SANCTIONS.
Defendant Solomon Sha's motion to compel responses to discovery is DENIED.
The motion is untimely, being set for hearing less than 15 days before the initial trial date. Moving party
correctly points out that a Court may hear a motion beyond that deadline. That discretion, however,
must be on the motion of a party to hear an untimely motion. (Pelton-Shepherd Indus., Inc. v. Delta
Packaging Prod., Inc. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1568, 1586-87; Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2024.050, subds.
(a) & (b)(1), (2).)Defendant Sha brought no such motion.
Even if Defendant Sha contends that the present motion falls within section 2024.050(a), the motion
does not demonstrate that it satisfies the statutory meet-and-confer requirement on the issue of
hearing this motion after the statutory deadline. (Pelton-Sheperd, supra, at 1586-87; Code of Civ. Proc.
Sect. 2024.050, subd. (a).)
Finally, the previous motion was denied in part because it did not include any proof of service showing
service of the underlying discovery. The present motion asserts that the Proof of Service is included this
time. (Moving Declaration of Miclean, para. 10 & Exhibit C.) Exhibit C does not include any proof of
service of the underlying discovery.
The motion by Defendant Sha for sanctions is DENIED.
1
Case Number: 18-CIV-03110
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for
Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature,
pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties
who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
December 18, 2019 1:30 PM Mandatory Settlement Conference
Grandsaert, John L.
Courtroom 2D
January 06, 2020 9:00 AM Jury Trial
Master Calendar, -
2
Document Filed Date
July 02, 2019
Case Filing Date
June 18, 2018
Category
(07) Unlimited Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Case Number: 18-CIV-03110 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order SWEET PRODUCTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs. 18-CIV-03110 SOLOMON SHA, et al 07/02/2019 9:00 AM Motion to Compel Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Davis, III, Leland Location: Courtroom 4C Courtroom Clerk: Sarai Goulart Courtroom Reporter: Annette Jaycox Parties Present Exhibits Minutes Journals - 9:00 Matter called. No appearance by any parties herein or their counsel of record. Case Events - Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:; DEFENDANT, SOLOMON SHA'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF SWEET PRODUCTION, INC., DEEMING OBJECTIONS WAIVED, MONETARY SANCTIONS AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS. Defendant Solomon Sha's motion to compel responses to discovery is DENIED. The motion is untimely, being set for hearing less than 15 days before the initial trial date. Moving party correctly points out that a Court may hear a motion beyond that deadline. That discretion, however, must be on the motion of a party to hear an untimely motion. (Pelton-Shepherd Indus., Inc. v. Delta Packaging Prod., Inc. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1568, 1586-87; Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2024.050, subds. (a) & (b)(1), (2).)Defendant Sha brought no such motion. Even if Defendant Sha contends that the present motion falls within section 2024.050(a), the motion does not demonstrate that it satisfies the statutory meet-and-confer requirement on the issue of hearing this motion after the statutory deadline. (Pelton-Sheperd, supra, at 1586-87; Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2024.050, subd. (a).) Finally, the previous motion was denied in part because it did not include any proof of service showing service of the underlying discovery. The present motion asserts that the Proof of Service is included this time. (Moving Declaration of Miclean, para. 10 & Exhibit C.) Exhibit C does not include any proof of service of the underlying discovery. The motion by Defendant Sha for sanctions is DENIED. 1 Case Number: 18-CIV-03110 If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings December 18, 2019 1:30 PM Mandatory Settlement Conference Grandsaert, John L. Courtroom 2D January 06, 2020 9:00 AM Jury Trial Master Calendar, - 2