DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV-25-006234·stanislaus·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayMOOT

RAZO, JUANA vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC

a) Plaintiff Juana Razo's Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC dba Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Request for Admission (Set Two) and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00; b) Plaintiff Juana Razo's Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC dba Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00; c) Plaintiff Juana Razo's Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC dba Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) No. 17.1 and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00

Hearing date
Aug 19, 2026
Department
24
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$2,500.00

Parties

PlaintiffJUANA RAZO
DefendantSAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC dba FOODMAXX

Ruling

Crediting Defendant with the sum of $1384.00 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $1,089.03 (Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299

CV-25-006234 - RAZO, JUANA vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC - a) Plaintiff Juana Razo's Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC dba Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Request for Admission (Set Two) and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00 - MOOT; b) Plaintiff Juana Razo's Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC dba Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00 - MOOT; c) Plaintiff Juana Razo's Motion to Compel Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets LLC dba Foodmaxx to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) No. 17.1 and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,500.00 - MOOT.

a) In view of Defendant's Counsel's Declaration of July 23, 2026, attesting to service of its Amended Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions at issue without objection by Plaintiff, the Court finds this motion now moot.

b) In view of Defendant's Counsel's Declaration of July 23, 2026, attesting to service of its Amended Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories at issue without objection by Plaintiff, the Court finds this motion now moot.

c) In view of Defendant's Counsel's Declaration of July 23, 2026, attesting to service of its Amended Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories at issue without objection by Plaintiff, the Court finds this motion now moot.

CV-25-008680 - DEERE & COMPANY vs TORRES, ANGEL - Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions to Defendant Angel Torres and for Sanctions - GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on Defendant on April 10, 2026, or at all, without substantial justification. Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. Accordingly, all objections to said Requests for Admissions by Defendant are hereby waived. (Code of Civil Procedure Sec.2033.280(a)).

Furthermore, said Request for Admissions, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted against Defendant in this matter for all purposes including trial. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2033.250(a), 2033.280 and 2033.410; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762).

Monetary sanctions of $410 are imposed against Defendant for Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion. Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms with the Court's ruling no later than August 26, 2026

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Richard D. Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: UD-26-000692 - SUNRISE MHC LLC vs GUZMAN, RIGO - Defendant's Demurrer - HEARING REQUIRED.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share