23CV425000 Jack Hansen vs Armando Case reassigned.
Sanchez et al
6-7 18CV321554 Palo Alto Property Owner Palo Alto Property Owner LLC’s motions to compel further responses to requests
LLC vs The Grocery Men I, for production and special interrogatories from Christopher Iversen and Addison
LLC et al Wright are GRANTED. A notice of motion with this hearing date was served on
Iversen and Wright by electronic mail on March 5, 2024. Iversen failed to file an
opposition. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the
motion [] is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Super Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403,
1410.) And, while Wright did file an opposition, that opposition does not argue
the requested discovery is not relevant or otherwise assert relevant objections to
producing the requested discovery. The Court has reviewed the separate
statements and Wright’s and Iversen’s written discovery responses. Those
responses are inadequate and, in some cases,
Hearing Date
April 19, 2024
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
23CV425000 Jack Hansen vs Armando Case reassigned.
Sanchez et al
6-7 18CV321554 Palo Alto Property Owner Palo Alto Property Owner LLC’s motions to compel further responses to requests
LLC vs The Grocery Men I, for production and special interrogatories from Christopher Iversen and Addison
LLC et al Wright are GRANTED. A notice of motion with this hearing date was served on
Iversen and Wright by electronic mail on March 5, 2024. Iversen failed to file an
opposition. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the
motion [] is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Super Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403,
1410.) And, while Wright did file an opposition, that opposition does not argue
the requested discovery is not relevant or otherwise assert relevant objections to
producing the requested discovery. The Court has reviewed the separate
statements and Wright’s and Iversen’s written discovery responses. Those
responses are inadequate and, in some cases,