Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
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 In addition, the date of the next proceeding reflects an outdated Case Management Conference.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).)
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?”
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.