This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/18/2021 at 03:02:27 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS SUMMER ROGERS, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/04/2020 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SUMMER ROGERS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2127

  • Filing Date:

    03/04/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants

ROGERS SUMMER

ROGERS ELVIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ESPINOSA TRISTAN

Defendant Attorney

LEACH BRIAN E

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER D ANDERSON ESQ

5/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER D ANDERSON ESQ

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER D ANDERSON ESQ

5/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER D ANDERSON ESQ

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/21/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/21/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/21/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/21/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/21/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/21/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/21/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER D ANDERSON ESQ

5/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER D ANDERSON ESQ

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/21/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/21/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/21/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER D ANDERSON ESQ

5/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF CHRISTOPHER D ANDERSON ESQ

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/21/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/21/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

6/23/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration ISO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL

7/16/2021: Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration ISO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2023
  • Hearing03/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2022
  • Hearing02/22/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: SUMMER ROGERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ELVIS ROGERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 08/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/03/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: SUMMER ROGERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
43 More Docket Entries
  • 04/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: SUMMER ROGERS (Defendant); Service Date: 03/16/2020; Service Cost: 79.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: SUMMER ROGERS (Defendant); ELVIS ROGERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: SUMMER ROGERS (Defendant); ELVIS ROGERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketDeclaration DECLARATION OF VENUE; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: SUMMER ROGERS (Defendant); ELVIS ROGERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: SUMMER ROGERS (Defendant); ELVIS ROGERS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC02127 Hearing Date: August 3, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (x2)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2030.300)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motions to Compel Further\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 29,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof July 29, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 4, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile\r\nInsurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Summer\r\nRogers and Elvis Rogers (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed an\r\nAnswer on June 10, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motions to Compel Further\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motions”), one against each\r\nDefendant on May 21, 2021. Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration on July\r\n16. No oppositions were filed.

\r\n\r\n

At the initial July 26 hearing,\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel informed the Court he filed documents on Friday July 23\r\ndemonstrating the Motions were timely. The Court continued the hearing to\r\nreview those late-filed documents.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides that\r\n“[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move\r\nfor an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that\r\nan answer is evasive or incomplete or if an objection is without merit or too\r\ngeneral. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Notice of the motions must be given\r\nwithin 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding\r\nparty waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2030.300, subd. (c).) The motions must\r\nalso be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Finally, Cal. Rules of\r\nCourt, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery\r\ncontain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a\r\nstatement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal.\r\nRules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One,\r\non each Defendant on July 27, 2020. (Motions, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exhs. 1.)\r\nDefendants served responses to the discovery on November 6, 2020 via email. (Id.,\r\nExhs. 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel provides evidence he sent a meet and confer\r\nletter regarding the responses on December 18, 2020. (Id., ¶¶ 3, Exhs.\r\n3.) These Motions followed on May 21, 2021, more than 45 days after initial\r\nresponses were received.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s counsel’s supplemental declaration does not\r\ndemonstrate the Motions were timely filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 18, 2020, the parties agreed to a mutual\r\nextension that expired on January 20, 2021. (7/23/21 Espinosa Decl., ¶ 3, Exh.\r\nA.) On January 20, the parties agreed to a second mutual 30-day extension until\r\nFebruary 19, 2021. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Three days after the second\r\nmutual extension expired, on February 22, the parties agreed to a third mutual\r\n30-day extension. (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. C.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Motions to compel further responses must be filed and\r\nserved within 45 days of receiving initial responses “or on or before any\r\nspecific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party\r\nhave agreed in writing…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)\r\n(Emphasis added.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Because Plaintiff failed to file this Motion or obtain a further\r\nextension on or before February 19, 2021, Plaintiff waived its right to compel\r\na further response. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motions to Compel Further\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC02127 Hearing Date: July 26, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (x2)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2030.300)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motions to Compel Further\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 21,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof July 21, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 4, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile\r\nInsurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Summer\r\nRogers and Elvis Rogers (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed an\r\nAnswer on June 10, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motions to Compel Further\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motions”), one against each\r\nDefendant on May 21, 2021. Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in\r\nsupport of the Motions on July 16. No oppositions were filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides that\r\n“[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move\r\nfor an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that\r\nan answer is evasive or incomplete or if an objection is without merit or too\r\ngeneral. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Notice of the motions must be given\r\nwithin 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding\r\nparty waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2030.300, subd. (c).) The motions must\r\nalso be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Finally, Cal. Rules of\r\nCourt, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further\r\ndiscovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the\r\nresponse, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further\r\nresponses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One,\r\non each Defendant on July 27, 2020. (Motions, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exhs. 1.)\r\nDefendants served responses to the discovery on November 6, 2020 via email. (Id.,\r\nExhs. 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel provides evidence he sent a meet and confer\r\nletter regarding the responses on December 18, 2020. (Id., ¶¶ 3, Exhs.\r\n3.) These Motions followed on May 21, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As discussed above, however, a motion to compel further\r\nresponses must be filed within 45 days of receiving the initial response. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Because these Motions to compel further\r\nresponses were filed more than six months after Plaintiff received Defendants’\r\ninitial responses, they are untimely.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s counsel’s supplemental declaration\r\ndemonstrates that, on April 23, 2021, the parties agreed to extend the time to\r\nrespond and the time to file motions to compel. (7/16/21 Anderson Supp. Decl.,\r\n¶ 3, Exh. A.) However, the parties’ agreement occurred more than 45 days after\r\ninitial responses to the Form Interrogatories were served on November 6, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the Motions are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motions to Compel Further\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC02127 Hearing Date: July 19, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (x2)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; REQUEST\r\nFOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2033.290)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motions to Compel Further\r\nResponses to Request for Admissions, Set One, are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 12,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof July 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 4, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile\r\nInsurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Summer\r\nRogers and Elvis Rogers (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed an\r\nAnswer on June 10, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motions to Compel Further\r\nResponses to Requests for Admission, Set One (the “Motions”), one against each\r\nDefendant on May 21, 2021. No oppositions were filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision\r\n(a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for\r\nadmissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a\r\nfurther response if that party deems that either or both of the following\r\napply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An\r\nobjection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of\r\nservice of the response otherwise the propounding party waives the right to\r\ncompel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a\r\nmeet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Finally, Cal. Rules of\r\nCourt, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further\r\ndiscovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the\r\nresponse, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further\r\nresponses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff propounded a Request for Admission, Set\r\nOne, on each Defendant on July 27, 2020. (Motions, Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exhs.\r\n1.) Following several extensions, Defendants served responses to the discovery\r\non November 6, 2020 via email. (Id., Exhs. 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel\r\nprovides evidence he sent a meet and confer letter regarding the responses\r\nreceived on December 18, 2020. (Id., ¶¶ 3, Exhs. 3.) These Motions followed\r\non May 21, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As discussed above, however, a motion to compel further\r\nresponses must be filed within 45 days of receiving the initial response. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) Because these Motions to compel further\r\nresponses were filed more than six months after Plaintiff received Defendants’\r\ninitial responses, they are untimely. Accordingly, the Motions are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motions to Compel Further\r\nResponses to Request for Admissions, Set One, are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ESPINOSA, TRISTAN P.