FLETES, IMELDA vs GROSSMAN, ERNEST

Based on the moving arguments and evidence, including the declaration of Kristin Weivoda and Barry Marsh and the attachments thereto, and in the absence of any opposition, the Court finds that Defendant, as the moving party, has met the burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment on Plaintiff's Complaint herein. Specifically, the Court finds the undisputed facts support the conclusion that (1) Defendant's personnel met the applicable standard of care in the care and treatment provided to Plaintiff's decedent; and (2) Defendant is entitled to the statutory immunity provided in Health & Safety Code Sec. 1799.107, as no allegation or evidence of bad faith or gross negligence is present herein.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24: CV-24-004401 - FLETES, IMELDA vs GROSSMAN, ERNEST - a) Defendant's Motion to Deem Matters Admitted; Request for Sanctions - MOOT in part, granted in part; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions - MOOT in part, granted in part; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions - MOOT in part, granted in part.

a) MOOT in part, granted in part. The Court finds that Defendant/Cross Defendant Ernest Grossman failed to timely respond to Defendant/Cross Complainant Rico's Pizza's Request for Admissions, Set One served on January 8, 2026, but that since the filing of this motion Mr. Grossman has served responses that are substantially compliant with Code of Civ. Proc. Sec.2033.220. Therefore, the Court is not required to and does not order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests are deemed admitted.

See Code of Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec.'s 2033.220, 2033.280(c). However, the Court finds that the filing of this motion was necessary to elicit Mr. Grossman's responses, and therefore the Court finds that Rico's Pizza is entitled to monetary sanctions of $225.00 for attorney's fees reasonably incurred pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec.'s 2023.010(d), 2033.280(c) and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1348(a). Said sanctions are awarded against Ernest Grossman and are to be paid by no later than 9/8/26.

b) MOOT in part, granted in part. The Court finds that Defendant/Cross Defendant Ernest Grossman failed to timely respond to Defendant/Cross Complainant Rico's Pizza's Requests for Production served on January 8, 2026. The Court notes that Mr. Grossman has served responses since the filing of this motion. However, the Court finds that this motion was necessary to elicit Mr. Grossman's responses, and therefore the Court finds that Rico's Pizza is entitled to monetary sanctions of $210.00 for its reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Sec.Sec.2031.300(c), 2023.010 (d) and