Motion For Terminating Sanctions Re: Plaintiff'S Refusal To Comply With Court Orders; Request For Monetary Sanctions
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Friday, February 27, 2026, Line 5. 1 - DEFENDANT 426 FILLMORE ASSOCATION'S Motion For Terminating Sanctions Re: Plaintiff's Refusal To Comply With Court Orders; Request For Monetary Sanctions Of $3,141.65 As Against Plaintiff And Plaintiff'S Counsel: Defendant 426 FILLMORE ASSOCATION's motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED. The messenger service of this motion on 2/3/26 is timely under CCP 1005(b).
On 8/22/25, the court ordered plaintiff to respond to the form interrogatories, inspection demand, and special interrogatories. Plaintiff failed to provide the responses. On 1/5/26, the court denied defendant's motion for terminating sanctions and noted that defendant failed to serve a notice of entry of the 8/22/25 orders in compliance with CCP 1019.5. That order also required further responses by 1/26/26. On 1/26/26, plaintiff provided further unverified responses. Plaintiff's failure to provide verified responses lacks substantial justification. But defendant fails to demonstrate a proper meet and confer prior to filing this motion. (Bauruc Decl.) Defendant therefore has also acted without substantial justification.
Based on plaintiff's 1/26/26 responses, a terminating sanction is not appropriate. "Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery." (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App. 4th 967, 992 (internal quotations omitted).) The court orders plaintiff to provide verified responses to the above discovery within one day of notice of entry of this order. Plaintiff and defendant 426 FILLMORE ASSOCATION shall each remit $500 to the court within 5 days of notice of entry of order because both parties acted without substantial justification. (CCP 2023.010, 2023.020, 2023.030.)
Defendant 426 FILLMORE ASSOCATION shall prepare a proposed order and e-mail it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. If the tentative is contested, the matter will be heard on March 12, 2026 at 1:00 p.m before Judge True in department 302.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
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?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.