Dec 19, 2014

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULING – FAMILY LAW Dept. 23 

JUDGE BRADFORD J. DEMEO
IN COURTROOM 23
FRIDAY, December 19, 2014 @ 9:30 A.M.

 

Tentative Rulings

The following Tentative Rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6723 by 4:00 p.m., December 18, 2014. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear. 

      

           

 

Sadri v. Rezvani SFL-48518

 

          The motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED. 

 

IRMO Brown SFL-53321

 

            The motion to continue trial date and reopen discovery is DENIED. 

 

Rodriguez v. Avila SFL-61408

 

            The Motion to compel declaration of disclosure is GRANTED.  If Petitioner does not produce a complete declaration of disclosure, and complete current income and expense declaration, on or before December 30, 2014, this court will issue sanctions for non-compliance with the previous order and reserves jurisdiction to issue further sanctions if she is not in compliance with this order.  The first sanction for non-compliance with the previous order will be $500.  Subsequent sanctions will be in greater amounts. 

 

IRMO Cassidy SFL-62601

 

            The request for order to bifurcate status is GRANTED.  The moving party is permitted to appear on this calendar to enter jurisdictional facts on the court record to complete the dissolution of status.  Judgment paperwork is required to complete the process. 

           

IRMO O’Brien SFL-65915

 

            Petitioner’s Motion for Relief pursuant to CCP 473 is DENIED.    Such Relief would not be proper as CCP § 473 applies to judgments, dismissals and orders only, not mistakes in the ordinary course of litigation.  However, Petitioner has not waived her right to compel further responses pursuant to CCP § 2020.300(c) as that code section applies only to verified responses, and is not applicable to responses consisting solely of objections.  Prior to January 1, 2014, the 45 day deadline applied to all discovery responses, even those consisting solely of objections.  (A response consisting solely of objections is authorized by the Discovery Act, and need not be verified.)  As of January 1, 2014, pursuant to A.B. 1183, CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.290(c), and 2033.290(c) were amended to add the word “verified” before the word “response”.  The waiver imposed by CCP § 2030.300(c), by its clear and plain language, only applies to verified responses (which is only one category of acceptable responses.  See, for example, CCP § 2030.210(a)(3)).  Thus, the result of the amendment is that if a party responds by objection only, there is no deadline to file a motion to compel further responses except the general cutoff prior to trial.  This is the current state of the law. 

 

            As for the balance of the discovery motions and motions to quash, this court appoints John Johnson as discovery referee in this case. 

 

© 2014 Superior Court of Sonoma County