Valcarenghi, Gerard v. Leyes, Katja, et al.
Defendant Katja Leyes’ Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions Be Admitted and Imposing Monetary Sanctions
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
Judge Benson – Law & Motion – Wednesday, April 15, 2026 @ 9:00 AM
1-2. 20CV01781 Leland, Morrissey & Knowles, LLP v. Bailey, Catherine et al.
EVENT: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to CCP 128.7 (Continued from 2/18/26 and 4/8/26) (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to CCP 128.5 (Continued from 2/18/26 and 4/8/26)
Consistent with the Court’s ruling granting Ms. Bailey’s Motion to Strike the November 19, 2025 order deeming admissions admitted, both motions under CCP 128.5 and 128.7 are denied. (The Court notes that the other allegedly improper papers identified in the motion cannot support CCP 128.5 and 128.7 relief, as CCP 128.7 is only suitable for papers that can be withdrawn, see Malovec v. Hamrell (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 434, 441.)
3. 22CV01319 Swigart, Barbara et al. v. Westhaven, Inc.
EVENT: Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs Associated With Abandoned Arbitration and for Evidence and Terminating Sanctions (Continued from 3/18/26)
Consistent with the Court’s previous ruling, the Court finds Plaintiff’s revised request of $14,595.00 in attorney fees and $302.09 in costs reasonable. Accordingly, pursuant to CCP 1281.99, Westhaven is ordered to pay Plaintiffs the sum of $14,897.09. Plaintiffs shall prepare and submit the form of order.
4. 23CV01873 Valcarenghi, Gerard v. Leyes, Katja, et al.
EVENT: Defendant Katja Leyes’ Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions Be Admitted and Imposing Monetary Sanctions
Defendant Katja Leyes’ Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions Be Admitted and Imposing Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. The Court is not considering the late filed opposition. Plaintiff is sanctioned in the amount of $1,041.68. Defendant shall prepare and submit a form of order within two weeks.
1
Cited authorities
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.