Legal Opinion
Sexton v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 5, 1997No. B109100PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (C. S.), P. J.
The petitioner raises the question of whether a trial court must either deny or dismiss a late-filed motion to compel the production of documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031, subdivision (Z) when the responding party failed to raise that objection in its written opposition, but did raise it orally at the hearing on the motion.1 We conclude that the statutory 45-day limitation imposed by section 2031, subdivision (Z) is mandatory. Accordingly, the trial court was required to deny the motion.
*1405Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner, Donald…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Deyo v. KilbourneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Karz v. KarlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Standon Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sierra Craft, Inc. v. Magnum Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- UNZIPPED APPAREL, LLC v. BaderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Weinstein v. Blumberg, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Collect Access v. Arabi CA2/4California Court of Appeal · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.