| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
By Plaintiffs Juventino Ortiz and Mariano Carranza for an Order Deeming Admissions of Request for Admissions, Set One, and Request for Sanctions
(35) Tentative Ruling
Re: Ortiz v. Cervantes et al. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG02055
Hearing Date: May 5, 2026 (Dept. 502)
Motion: By Plaintiffs Juventino Ortiz and Mariano Carranza for an Order Deeming Admissions of Request for Admissions, Set One, and Request for Sanctions
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. in Department 502.
Tentative Ruling:
To grant the motion seeking an order deeming the truth of matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set One established pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b) against defendant Fernando Lugo Cervantes unless responses in substantial conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 are served prior to the hearing.
To deny the request for sanctions.
Explanation:
On December 24, 2025, the discovery at issue was served on defendant Fernando Lugo Cervantes. (Bolce Decl., ¶ 3 and Ex. 1.) As of the filing of the motion, no responses were served. (Id., ¶ 4.) No opposition was filed.
Based on the above, the motion seeking an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One deemed established, will be granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b) unless responses in substantial conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 are served prior to the hearing.
Sanctions are mandatory unless the court finds that the party acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances that would render sanctions “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) As no opposition was filed, the court would typically find that no circumstances that would render the mandatory sanctions unjust. However, plaintiffs Juventino Ortiz and Mariano Carranza submit the declaration of Shiloh A. Parker of the Law Office of Shiloh A. Parker in support. Neither Parker nor the Law Office of Shiloh A. Parker are counsel of record. The declaration attests that Parker is a legal consultant to counsel of record. No corresponding declaration from counsel of record attests to Parker having done any work on the present motion, the papers for which are all subscribed by Cody Bolce, who is listed as from the law firm of record.
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?”
Moreover, Parker seeks to assert an hourly rate of $728 based on an unqualified report with no foundation or explanation as to the chart of figures or why information from 2021 is indicative of a reasonable rate. The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) Parker lays no foundation to rely on the unqualified report to conclude that “my qualifications and experience” command a $728 hourly rate. Under these circumstances, the court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. The request for sanctions is denied.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 05/01/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
10