Cooke

Cooke v. Tayac CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 12, 2024A170044California1,889 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goldman, J.

BACKGROUND

Cooke initiated this action by filing a complaint against respondents arising from a series of financial and real estate transactions that went awry. Tayac represented Parton in the Contra Costa County action; Cooke and Peterson were named as defendants there. In this action, the initial trial

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

2 date was set for September 25, 2023. In May 2023, the trial court granted Cooke’s motion to transfer and consolidate the Contra Costa County case with this action, with the consolidation order entered on August 7, 2023. On August 24, 2023, respondents filed a motion to compel production of various discovery documents following Peterson’s August 14, 2023 deposition. Respondents simultaneously filed an ex parte motion to shorten time, apparently to ensure the motion to compel would be heard by the September 11, 2023 discovery hearing cutoff date.2 On September 25, the trial court continued the trial to November 13, 2023. Over Cooke’s opposition, and following hearing and negotiations between the parties, the trial court granted the motion to compel on September 26, 2023, and entered a stipulated order…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.