Sinpo Corp. v. Raksham, LLC
Motion to deem admitted requests for admission; Motion to compel initial responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: July 16, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 22CV399641 Caroline Ma v. Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. Robert Lin, M.D. et al. Line 2 25CV468863 Sinpo Corp. v. Plaintiff Sinpo Corp.’s motion to deem admitted requests for admission, Raksham, LLC set one. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed. Defendant made no response to the requests for admission. On good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: requests for admission one through 35 are deemed admitted, as are the requests for admission of the genuineness of documents one through 10.
Requests for admission 36 and 37 are not deemed admitted because plaintiff did not submit proof of compliance with the declaration requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.030. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030, subd. (a) [“No party shall request, as a matter of right, that any other party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents.”].) The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant and its counsel of record are jointly and severally responsible to pay plaintiff $660 ($60 filing fee plus two hours at $300/hour) no later than August 17, 2026.
Plaintiff does not explain the basis for its claimed $90 filing fee. Plaintiff ordered to submit proposed order listing verbatim the admissions to be admitted as well as the language of this tentative decision.
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: July 16, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
Line 3 25CV468863 Sinpo Corp. v. Plaintiff Sinpo Corp.’s motion to compel initial responses to form Raksham, LLC interrogatories, set one; special interrogatories, set one; and requests for production, set one. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed. Defendant did not respond to the discovery requests. On good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to respond to the requested discovery, without objections, no later than August 17, 2026.
The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant and its counsel of record are jointly and severally responsible to pay plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $660 ($60 filing fee plus two hours of attorney fees at $300/hour) no later than August 17, 2026. Plaintiff does not explain the basis for its claimed $90 filing fee. The court will prepare the order. Line 4 23CV423336 Online Brands, LLC Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. v. SJS Group, LLC Line 5 24CV454280 Channel Partners Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling.
Capital, LLC v. Sukhjeev Singh et al.
3
Cited authorities
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?”