Motion for Order Compelling Answers to First Set of Special Interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
25CV028618: CLAIM OF: VERONICA VALDEZ 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Answers to First Set of Special Interrogatories in Department 8C
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that in Judge Richard C. Miadichs absence, any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 16B in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Shelleyanne W.L. Chang presiding.
Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:
(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and
(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.
If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.
The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:
https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16159979406
SIP Address:
25CV028618: CLAIM OF: VERONICA VALDEZ 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Answers to First Set of Special Interrogatories in Department 8C
16159979406@sip.zoomgov.com
(833) 568-8864
ID: 16159979406
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to
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?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner People of the State of Californias (Petitioner) Motion for Order Compelling Answers to First Set of Special Interrogatories, set one, is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
This is an asset forfeiture case. The respondent property is $1,240.00 in currency seized on July 9, 2025. The Real Party in Interest is Veronica Valdez (Valdez). She filed a claim opposing forfeiture, claiming an interest in the seized property.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV028618: CLAIM OF: VERONICA VALDEZ 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Answers to First Set of Special Interrogatories in Department 8C
Petitioner served Valdez with a First Set of Special interrogatories on December 10, 2025. (Decl. of Andrew Soloman (Soloman Decl.) ¶ 5.) No responses to the SIs have been provided. (Soloman Decl. ¶ 7.)
No opposition to the motion has been filed. A partys failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)
For the stated reasons, Petitioners motion is granted. Valdez shall serve verified responses to the SIs, without objections, no later than August 14, 2026.
Petitioner shall provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) calendar days.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.