Motion to Compel; Monetary Sanctions
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 07/01/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 22CV406880 Sriadhibhatla Chainulu Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment vs Ajit Sanzgiri et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 24CV428712 Belen Ibanez Motion to Compel vs Javier Ibanez et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 3 24CV444998 City of San Jose, a Petition for Adjudication and Approval of Option Agreement by Receiver charter city vs Kim Ho et al. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 4 25CV472064 Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment N.a. vs Sukhjeev Singh Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 4 LINES 5 - 25CV476569 Greg Gianotti Demurrer & Motion to Strike vs 6 Salacup Nardito et al.
Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 5 LINE 7 25CV479084 Sandeep Pal vs Denodo Petition Compel Arbitration Technologies Inc. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 7 LINE 8 25CV47984 Pedram Bigdeli et al. Hearing: Petition Compel Arbitration vs Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 8
- oo0oo -
Calendar Line 2 Case Name: Ibanez v. Ibanez et al. Case No.: 24CV428712
Defendants’ Motion to Compel & Sanctions
I. MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendants move to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two. Plaintiff has since served verified responses without objections. Because the requested discovery has been provided, there is no further relief to grant.
Although later compliance does not deprive the court of authority to adjudicate discovery motions in appropriate circumstances (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409), the motion itself no longer presents a live issue requiring an order compelling responses. The motion to compel is therefore denied as moot.
II. MONETARY SANCTIONS
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?”
Here, Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses and did not engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts before the motion was filed. Although responses were ultimately served, they were provided only after motion practice was required. Plaintiff offers no substantial justification for the delay.
Under these circumstances, monetary sanctions are appropriate.
III. AMOUNT AND ALLOCATION
Defendants seek $945.00 in reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the motion, supported by counsel’s declaration.(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) The amount requested is reasonable and supported.
As to allocation, sanctions may be imposed against a party, counsel, or both. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Given Plaintiff’s documented medical condition and the nature of the default as a discovery compliance failure, the Court finds sanctions should be imposed against counsel rather than Plaintiff.
Accordingly:
The motion to compel is DENIED AS MOOT.
Monetary sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $945.00, payable by Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendants within 30 days.
Defendant to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.
- oo0oo -