DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV2025-3324·yolo·Civil·Civil Discovery
Hearing about 2 months agoMotions to compel DENIED AS MOOT; Request for sanctions GRANTED IN PART

Bruno v. Estrada Dominguez

Motion to deem the truth of matters admitted; Motion to compel responses to form interrogatories; Motion to compel responses to special interrogatories; Motion for production of documents; Request for monetary sanctions

Hearing date
Jul 21, 2026
Department
Fourteen
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$5,030.00

Parties

PlaintiffRay Steven Bruno
DefendantMarco Antonio Melendrez
DefendantHilda Florencia Estrada Dominguez

Ruling

Case: Bruno v. Estrada Dominguez Case No. CV2025-3324 Hearing Date: July 21, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.

Plaintiff Ray Steven Bruno’s motions to deem the truth of the matters admitted, compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and for production of documents, as to defendants Marco Antonio Melendrez and Hilda Florencia Estrada Dominguez are DENIED AS MOOT. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b), 2033.280, subd. (b).) On July 8, 2026, defendants served verifications to plaintiff’s request for admissions, form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. (Turner decls. ISO amended opposition, ¶¶ 1-2, Exhibit A.)

Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions against defendants are GRANTED IN PART, in the amount of $5,030.00. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c); Gregg decls., ¶¶ 13-14.) The Court declines to award sanctions for time not yet incurred. The sanctions shall be paid by no later than August 21, 2026.

If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312, or further notice is required.

2 of 5

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