Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Sanctions
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
DATE: August 4, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 23CV414045 Yesenia Zavaleta Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Cost vs Volkswagen OFF CALENDAR. On July 30, 2026, the parties stipulated to continue Group of America, this motion for attorney’s fees to August 11, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Inc. et al Department 1 to join the motion to strike cost.
LINE 2 23CV416906 Emilia Arroyo vs Demurrer Juan Manuel Scroll down to Line 2 for Tentative Ruling. Salas, Jr. LINES 24CV431877 Robert Hayter, II Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories (Line # 3) and 3-4 vs Bella Nguyen et Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents al (Line #4); Sanctions Defendant Bella Nguyen filed two motions: (1) motion to compel responses to form interrogoatires, set one and sanctions; and (2) motion to compel request for production of documents, set one and sanctions on November 21, 2025. The motion was accompanied by a proof of service indicating mail service to Plaintiff Robert Hayter, II. Both motions were set for hearing on July 30, 2026.
The motion is unopposed. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489
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?”
Per ex parte papers filed by the plaintiff seeking a continuance, the Honorable Mark Flannagan CONTINUED both motions to September 8, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 1.
2