Elam v. NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc., et al. (KC067742)
1. Cross-Complainant NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc.’s MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF CROSS-DEFENDANT DEALERS AUTO AUCTION OF THE SOUTHWEST
Respondent: Cross-Defendant Dealers Auto Action of the Southwest
2. Specially Appearing Cross-Defendant Dealers Auto Auction of the Southwest’s MOTION TO QUASH
Respondent: Cross-Complainant NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING
1. Motion to Compel
Cross-Complainant NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc.’s motion to compel depositions of cross-defendant Dealers Auto Auction of the Southwest is DENIED. No sanctions.
Cross-Complainant NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc. (“NWAFOR”) moves to compel jurisdictional discovery to oppose Cross-Defendant Dealers Auto Auction of the Southwest (“DAATS”)’s motion to quash per CCP 2025.450 and Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.
When jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that "
Hearing Date
December 15, 2016
Type
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Elam v. NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc., et al. (KC067742)
1. Cross-Complainant NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc.’s MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF CROSS-DEFENDANT DEALERS AUTO AUCTION OF THE SOUTHWEST
Respondent: Cross-Defendant Dealers Auto Action of the Southwest
2. Specially Appearing Cross-Defendant Dealers Auto Auction of the Southwest’s MOTION TO QUASH
Respondent: Cross-Complainant NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING
1. Motion to Compel
Cross-Complainant NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc.’s motion to compel depositions of cross-defendant Dealers Auto Auction of the Southwest is DENIED. No sanctions.
Cross-Complainant NWAFOR Enterprises, Inc. (“NWAFOR”) moves to compel jurisdictional discovery to oppose Cross-Defendant Dealers Auto Auction of the Southwest (“DAATS”)’s motion to quash per CCP 2025.450 and Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.
When jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that "