DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV0000673·marin·Civil·Discovery
Hearing todayGRANTED; $2,700 in sanctions ordered.

Ashley Shah v. Nitin Shah, et al.

Motion to compel answers to interrogatories; Motion to deem admissions admitted

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
H
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$3,660$2,700

Parties

PlaintiffAshley Shah
DefendantNitin Shah

Ruling

2) MOTION – ADMISSIONS – DISCOVERY FACILITATOR PROGRAM 3) MOTION – ADMISSIONS – DISCOVERY FACILITATOR PROGRAM

Plaintiff Ashley Shah (“Plaintiff”) file a motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Plaintiff’s Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, and Supplemental Interrogatories. Plaintiff also filed a motion to deem Requests for Admission admitted. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $3,660. Defendant was served with notice of these motions, including the Court’s notice of a continuance from August 7, 2026 to August 26, 2026. No opposition was filed.

A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54, subd. (c).) Failure to oppose a motion may also lead to the presumption that [plaintiff] has no meritorious arguments. (See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481, 489, disapproved of by Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, on other grounds.)

The Court grants the motions in light of the non-opposition. However, in light of the non-opposition, the Court deems 6 hours of time to be reasonable instead of 8 hours. Sanctions are therefore ordered in the amount of $2,700 to be paid within 30 days of service of this order. Failure to comply with this order and any previous orders may lead to further sanctions in this matter.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in

accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for August, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1 Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov

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