DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25625397·sf·Civil·Discovery
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

SONNY SAMONPAL VS. BELKIN BENITEZ-CRUZ ET AL

Motion To Compel Initial Responses To Form Interrogatories And Requests For Production; Compel Further Responses To Requests For Admission From Defendant Belkin Benitez-Cruz; Deem Requests For Admission Admitted Against Defendant Guadamuz Transportation, LLC; For $6,300 In Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants

Hearing date
Jul 2, 2026
Department
301
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$6,300

Parties

PlaintiffSONNY SAMONPAL
DefendantBELKIN BENITEZ-CRUZ
DefendantGUADAMUZ TRANSPORTATION, LLC

Attorneys

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC25625397 - July 2, 2026 Hearing date: July 2, 2026 Case number: CGC25625397 Case title: SONNY SAMONPAL VS. BELKIN BENITEZ-CRUZ ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25625397 | Case Title: | | SONNY SAMONPAL VS. BELKIN BENITEZ-CRUZ ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-02 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Initial Responses To Form Interrogatories And Requests For Production, Compel Further Responses To Requests For Admission From Defendant Belkin Benitez-Cruz, Deem Requests For Admission Admitted Against Defendant Guadamuz Transportation, Llc, And For $6,300 In Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; And Declaration Of Anthony M.

Bettencourt | Rulings: | | Matter on calendar for Thursday, July 02, 2026, Line 7, PLAINTIFF SONNY SAMONPAL's Motion To Compel Initial Responses To Form Interrogatories And Requests For Production, Compel Further Responses To Requests For Admission From Defendant Belkin Benitez-Cruz, Deem Requests For Admission Admitted Against Defendant Guadamuz Transportation, LLC, And For $6,300 In Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants. (Complete tentative ruling e-mailed to the parties).

Plaintiff Sonny Samonpal's discovery motion is granted as stated herein for good cause shown.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA). | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share