Motion to Compel Discovery; Motion for Leave to Withdraw or Amend Admissions
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 6, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-23-002864 - GUTIERREZ, WENDY MARILYN QUINTERO vs MERCADO, JORGE - a) Defendants Jorge Mercado and Josephine Mercado's Motion for Imposition of Discovery and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiffs and/or their Counsel- GRANTED in part. b) Defendants Jorge Mercado and Josephine Mercado's Motion for Imposition of Discovery and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiffs and/or their Counsel - GRANTED in part.
a-b) The pleadings in this matter are not uniformly helpful. Defendants argue about an expert disclosure issue which does not involve them and appears to be used as character evidence. This does not advance the issue. Plaintiff spends much of her briefing on the following points: 1.The Court's initial decision was wrong and should be reversed. 2.Defendants have repeatedly lied. 3.New defense counsel is different than prior defense counsel and is bad at her job. None of these points assist the Court.
On July 9, 2026, the Court ordered further responses to 14 special interrogatories noting that answers appeared to be evasive, incomplete, and that citations to the Complaint were insufficient. On July 20, 2026, Plaintiffs provided a response that they had no further information. The Court intends to limit issues raised at trial as to the information provided in response to the interrogatories. Plaintiffs imply that they have information developed in discovery as to which of the items in Special Interrogatory 1 that the Mercados knew or should have known about at the time of the sale but do not provide it.
The Court finds as follows on whether items will be allowed or disallowed based on the initial disclosure to those items undisclosed by any defendant: Items 1 and 2: Allowed: Cracks in foundation. Item 3: Allowed: Roofing of structure, permitting on roofing. Disallowed: "Electrical," as the lack of specificity is fatal. "May be too close to property line," as this is equivocal and does not articulate the safety issues. Item 4: Allowed: Gas leaks, safety device, heat changer cracks in HVAC system.
Item 5: Disallowed in full. The defect which caused any leak and where that leak came from is unstated. Item 6: Allowed: Shower leak. Item 7: Disallowed in full. No description of the damage or the nature of the impropriety in construction. Item 8: Allowed: Improper waterproofing behind shower walls. Disallowed: All else, as it appears conjectural. Item 9: Allowed: Leaky gutters. Item 10: Disallowed in full. "Inadequate," is insufficient.
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?”
The Court addresses here only the issues in the motion. The Court treats this effectively as a motion in limine and declines to issue further monetary sanctions, though I seriously considered otherwise.
CV-25-003684 - KUMAR, PARMILA vs AGUILAR BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Ulysses Aguilar's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Enrique Aguilar's Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed; c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Enrique Aguilar's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed; d) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed;
e) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed; f) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company's Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; g) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; h) Defendant American Contractors Motion for Leave to Withdraw or Amend Admissions (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.300) - GRANTED with conditions.
a) The Court finds that Defendant Ulysses Aguilar has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2031.300(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Ulysses Aguilar, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
b) The Court finds that Defendant Enrique Aguilar has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Enrique Aguilar, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
c) The Court finds that Defendant Enrique Aguilar has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Se One, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2031.300(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Enrique Aguilar, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
d) The Court finds that Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc., has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc., payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
e) The Court finds that Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc. has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(a).) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Se One, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(b).) The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2031.300(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $435 are awarded against Defendant Aguilar Brothers Construction, Inc. payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
f) The parties shall appear to inform the Court of the status of the promised responses and to address the issue of sanctions.
g) The parties shall appear to inform the Court of the status of the promised responses and to address the issue of sanctions.
h) Plaintiff correctly observes that there was no proposed response to the RFA's and ACIC's "prompt commitment to cure," has not included any showing of excusable neglect by the attorney and ACIC has not actually made efforts to cure. Nonetheless, under New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, the Court must affirmatively find that ACIC's conduct was inexcusable, which under these circumstances the Court cannot do. Further Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.300 controls. On the other hand, ACIC's view of "prompt" and the Court's differ. This motion is granted conditionally under the following terms: 1. Responses shall be provided by 4 p.m. August 13, 2026.
2. ACIC shall pay $720 to Plaintiff's counsel for a portion of the fees and costs for this motion.
CV-26-000621 - HOGGATT, STEVEN vs BAABAD, AHMED - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED. The effective date of the order shall be delayed until submission of proof of service of the signed order on the client. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(e).) In addition, the Court notes errors in the proposed order submitted by counsel. The proposed order appears to erroneously assert that the client was personally served with the papers herein, which is not supported by counsel's declaration or proof of service. In addition, the date of the next proceeding reflects an outdated Case Management Conference. Counsel shall correct these and submit a revised form of proposed order for the Court's signature.
CV-26-004871 - THOMAS, SHAN VALENCIA vs STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE - Petitioner's Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Ordering Compliance with the California Public Records Act - DENIED, without prejudice. Proof of service fails to demonstrate compliance with Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 416.50 for service of process on a public entity.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-24-008419 - GUTIERREZ, ROBERTO vs NINO, ARTURO - Plaintiffs Roberto and Bertha Gutierrez's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication - CONTINUED to August 13, at 8:30 am in Department 22. The hearing is continued on the Court's own motion for further review and consideration. The hearing is CONTINUED to August 13, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.
CV-25-012731 - ORTEGA, OFELIA vs VASQUEZ, RUBEN - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production and Request for order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Ruben Vasquez in the Sum of $1560.00 - GRANTED, and unopposed.
On July 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for order that matters in request for admission of truth of facts be deemed admitted. There is no opposition on file. "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he 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[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).)
On April 24, 2026, Plaintiff served 11 requests for admission on Defendant, to which Defendant did not respond. On July 28, 2026, Defendant filed a motion for protective order to prohibit Plaintiff from propounding further discovery and to relieve Defendant from responding to Plaintiff's discovery requests, but there is no opposition on file nor is there any filing indicating that Defendant served a substantially compliant proposed response to the requests. The unopposed motion is GRANTED. Sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) Therefore, the Court GRANTS the request for order for monetary sanctions in the amount of $660.00 against Defendant in conjunction with the instant motion. Plaintiff is to pay the sanctions to the LAW OFFICES OF BART BARRINGER. Plaintiff to submit proposed order within 5 court days that conforms to this ruling.