MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED.
Background
On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Zoltan Ladany filed the instant action against Defendant Robert A. Young, individually and as Trustee of the Ladany Trust Dated May 8, 1993, and Does 1 through 25. The Complaint asserts causes of action for:
Fraud;
Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
Accounting; and
Breach of Contract (Intended Third-Party Beneficiary).
Plaintiff now seeks to compel Defendant’s responses, without objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
Legal Standard
For a motion to compel initial discovery responses, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's]
Hearing Date
December 01, 2020
Department
31
Docket Filing date
Category
civil
Type
Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Pending
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED.
Background
On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff Zoltan Ladany filed the instant action against Defendant Robert A. Young, individually and as Trustee of the Ladany Trust Dated May 8, 1993, and Does 1 through 25. The Complaint asserts causes of action for:
Fraud;
Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
Accounting; and
Breach of Contract (Intended Third-Party Beneficiary).
Plaintiff now seeks to compel Defendant’s responses, without objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
Legal Standard
For a motion to compel initial discovery responses, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's]