Legal Opinion
Weinstein v. Blumberg
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided July 17, 2018No. B282267PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChaney, J.
*318Resch Polster & Berger (RPB) appeals from an order granting discovery sanctions after a motion to compel further responses to a deposition notice. Counsel for Isaac Blumberg, Eytan Ribner, and Blumberg Ribner, Inc. (collectively BRI) served a notice of motion and motion to compel within a statutory deadline, but did not serve any of the required supporting papers upon which the motion was based until 15 court days before the hearing. RPB contends the motion was untimely *660and that the sanctions order should therefore be reversed. We agree.
BACKGROUND
Zev Weinstein (through his counsel, RPB) filed…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Alvak Enterprises v. PhillipsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Goddard v. PollockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Sexton v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- O'BRIEN v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Golf & Tennis Pro Shop v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2022
- Thai v. Richmond City Center, L.P.California Court of Appeal · 2022
- Yousif v. Alpine Orthopedic Medical Group CA5California Court of Appeal · 2021