Defendant State of California Department of Transportation's Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted and Requests for Mandatory Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, the motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Defendants submitted in connection with the instant motion.
PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATHEW - a) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; b) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; c) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; d) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED.
a) Requests for Production The Court notes that the separate statement for this motion was not fully compliant with rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court because it grouped the requests for production and did not quote the requests and the responses verbatim. Nonetheless, to the extent that the tardy responses contained objections or were otherwise not fully code-compliant, the motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
b) Form Interrogatories Petitioner's motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1 without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
c) Special Interrogatories Petitioner's motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
d) Requests for Admissions Petitioner's motion is GRANTED. With regard to the requests numbered above 35, although the number of requests exceeds the statutory limit and there was apparently no declaration of necessity, any objection to the excessive number of requests and the lack of a declaration was waived due to the fact that responses were not timely served. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.030(b).) Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-24-010698 - SANTIBANEZ, RAYMOND vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS - Defendant State of California Department of Transportation's Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted and Requests for Mandatory Sanctions - DENIED, in part, as MOOT; GRANTED, in part, as to sanctions. The request for an order deeming matters admitted is DENIED, based on Plaintiff's provision of substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c).) However, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions based on Plaintiff's counsel's conduct which necessitated the motion. (Ibid.) Therefore, Defendant is awarded monetary sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel, Jakrun Sodhi, in the amount of $228, payable to defense counsel.
CV-25-006137 - HOEY, ERIC vs ESMAILI, EDWARD - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses, Without Objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant Edward Esmaili and Request for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses, Without Objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Against Defendant Crime Guard, Inc. and Request for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) The Court finds that Defendant has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set One within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $460 are awarded against Defendant Nirmal Mann and his attorney, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
b) The Court finds that Defendant has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set One within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $460 are awarded against Defendant Crime Guard, Inc. and its attorney, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-24-003753 - COOPER, LORI vs ROCK STAR LUXURY LIMOS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Verification, Approval of Class Notice, Setting of Final Approval Hearing Date - GRANTED. Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court finds as follows: The Settlement class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c). The proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness and deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and subject to final approval by this Court. The class counsel, class representative and claims administrator are hereby preliminarily approved and appointed as set forth in the motion.
The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter: 7-3-26 | Defendant shall provide Class Information to Administrator. | 7-17- 26 | Administrator shall mail Class Notice to Class Members. | 9-18-26 |