Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts; Motion to Compel Responses and Production to Request for Production; Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: AUGUST 5, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 25CV01389
HERNANDEZ v. PATEL, et al.
(UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
(UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
(UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
(UNOPPOSED) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
The unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff Saul Hernandez shall serve verified code compliant responses and production to request for production of documents (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and form interrogatories (set one), no later than September 4, 2026.
The Court deems admitted all matters specified in the requests for admission, set one. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) This will be the order of the Court unless plaintiff serves, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admissions that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.
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?”
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: AUGUST 5, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
“If a party to whom requests for admission have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction pursuant to Section 2023.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Monetary sanctions are mandatory if requested. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Defendant Kismat Hospitality Inc. dba Capri Motel demonstrated it served the discovery at issue on February 11, 2026. Plaintiff has not provided any responses. (Culley Declarations, ¶¶ 3-4, 7-10.) Sanctions are imposed against plaintiff in the amount of $1,540.00 (four hours at $325/hour plus $240.00 in filing fees), payable no later than September 4, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)
No. 19CV03844
MLYNAR v. CEA
INTERPLEADER CROSS-COMPLAINANTS LAW OFFICE OF JON-MARC DOBRIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND JON-MARC DOBRIN’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
As discussed below, the motion is denied.
Cross-complainants filed a verified cross-complaint on June 6, 2025, and now seek leave to file a first amended cross-complaint to add a fourth cause of action for defamation per se against plaintiff/cross-defendant Mlynar, to add proposed cross-defendant Raoul Couret to the first cause of action for declaratory relief, and to remove cross-defendants Steno Agency, Inc. dba Steno, and Jeremy Babner dba Structured Legal, from the cross-complaint. The motion is accompanied by a declaration from Dobrin and Couret.
According to Dobrin’s declaration, “[t]he proposed FACC is intended to add evidence of subsequently discovered witnesses to support the allegation” that Mlynar made disparaging remarks about Dobrin and his firm to a third person that constitutes slander per se. (Decl. of Dobrin at ¶ 4.) Dobrin asserts he learned of this conduct because of a September 29, 2025, declaration authored by Couret. (Decl. of Dobrin at ¶ 5.)
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 a motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading; state which allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, in any, and where the additional allegations are