DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV471047·santaclara·Civil·Contract
Hearing in about 3 hoursDENIED

Hang Sheng et al. v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. et al.

Motion to compel further responses to form and special interrogatories

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
10
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHang Sheng
PlaintiffChao Xu
DefendantPrometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.
DefendantPreg San Antonio Apartments, LP

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 20, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV451704 Teresa Bucciarelli et al. v. Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. Alem Imru et al. Line 2 24CV453289 American Express National Click LINE 2 or scroll down for ruling. Bank v. Olga Buchonina Line 3 25CV471047 Hang Sheng et al. v. Defendants Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. and Preg San Prometheus Real Estate Antonio Apartments, LP’s motion to compel further responses to Group, Inc. et al. (1) form and special interrogatories, set one, against plaintiff Hang Sheng; and (2) special interrogatories, set one, against plaintiff Chao Xu.

Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by plaintiffs. Defendants’ meet and confer declaration regarding e-mail messages sent to plaintiffs does not comply with the current version of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, subdivision (a), which requires “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Italics added.) Defendants’ motion also lacks the separate statement required for a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2).) The court declines defendants’ request to overlook those deficiencies. The motion to compel is denied. The court will prepare the order. Line 4 25CV473914 Gyorgy Sofalvi v. Ford Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Motor Company, a Delaware corporation et al.

2

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