IBARRA PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION VS. DING HE MINING HOLDINGS LIMITED ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC17561980 - August 12, 2026 Hearing date: August 12, 2026 Case number: CGC17561980 Case title: IBARRA PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION VS. DING HE MINING HOLDINGS LIMITED ET AL Case Number: | | CGC17561980 | Case Title: | | IBARRA PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION VS. DING HE MINING HOLDINGS LIMITED ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-08-12 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion To: (1) Compel Defendant Paulo Zhou Heng Gu To Answer Judgment Debtor Interrogatories; And (2) For Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant In Having To File The Motion To Compel | Rulings: | | Matter on calendar for Wednesday, August 12, 2026, Line 4, PLAINTIFF IBARRA PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION's Motion To: (1) Compel Defendant Paulo Zhou Heng Gu To Answer Judgment Debtor Interrogatories; And (2) For Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant In Having To File The Motion To Compel.

Judgment creditor Ibarra Professional Law Corporation's motion to compel judgment debtor Paulo Gu to serve further responses to judgment enforcement interrogatories and for monetary sanctions is denied as moot as to interrogatories 1-13, granted as to interrogatories 14-2, and granted in part as to monetary sanctions.

Gu's substantive responses to interrogatories 1-13 moot this motion as to those interrogatories. If Ibarra Corp. believes any of those responses are deficient, it will need to engage in further meet and confer and, if the issues are not resolved by the meet and confer, file another motion.

Gu's most recent objections based on the Fifth Amendment to interrogatories 14-22 lack merit. Like Mr. Troy in Troy v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 1006, 1013, Gu's fear that he may be subjected to criminal prosecution is based on speculation and not the existence of "real danger" that is required for the valid invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Gu must serve verified code-complaint further supplemental responses without objections to interrogatories 14-22 no later than August 3, 2026.

Gu's original responses to the interrogatories and his belated service of further responses lack substantial justification requiring an award of monetary sanctions against him. No later than September 30, 2026 Gu must pay reasonable monetary sanctions of $3,083.75 to Ibarra Corp.

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.

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.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/HEK). | |