Lidia Virrueta vs. Pavewest LLC, et al.

determination, the characterization of Nelson's mistake as the mere failure to file a declaration and proof of service ignores this necessary, second component required by Section 2033.280(c) to avoid the devastating effects of failing to respond to a set of requests for admissions. (See Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 400.) Such a mistake amounts to the type of professional incompetence, general ignorance, or unjustifiable negligence that warrants no relief.

Thus, given these circumstances, it is clear that Nelson's mistake was inexcusable and cannot support relief under Section 2033.300(b). Furthermore, as Defendant's unjustified, nearly three-year delay in seeking relief would substantially prejudice Plaintiff due to his reliance on the effect of these admissions in developing a litigation strategy and litigating this action over the past three years, this alternative basis would also support denial of the motion under Section 2033.300(b). (See deRubertis Decl.

P.P. 1-5.) Therefore, as no relief is available under Section 2033.300(b), the motion to set aside the order establishing admissions is denied.

Defendant Tesla, Inc.'s Motion to Set Aside an Order Establishing Admissions is DENIED.

Virrueta vs. Pavewest LLC, et al. Motion to Deem Admitted the First Set of Requests for Admission Propounded on Plaintiff Lidia Virrueta Moving Party: Defendant Ben's Asphalt & Maintenance Company, Inc. Responding Party: Plaintiff Lidia Virrueta Tentative Ruling: Deny in part, grant in part RULING In reviewing the papers and submitted evidence, the Court finds that Defendant Ben's Asphalt & Maintenance Company, Inc. ("Defendant") properly served Plaintiff Lidia Virrueta ("Plaintiff") with a first set of requests for admission on June 8, 2026, and that Plaintiff failed to timely respond to these requests.

However, in reviewing the untimely responses that were served on Defendant before the hearing, the Court finds that these responses are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. (See, e.g., St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778.) Thus, the motion to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in these requests is denied. Although the motion is denied, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) mandates the imposition of sanctions on "the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion."

In fulfilling this mandate, the Court retains "broad discretion to use rational methods to reduce a requested amount in order to reach a reasonable award." (In re Marriage of Moore (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1275, 1300.) Accordingly, as the Court finds that

requested amount of sanctions is reasonable based on counsel's billing rate and hours of work, the request for monetary sanctions is granted in its entirety. Defendant Ben's Asphalt & Maintenance Company, Inc.'s Motion to Deem Admitted the First Set of Requests for Admission Propounded on Plaintiff Lidia Virrueta is DENIED. Defendant's request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the total amount of $1,122.50 against Plaintiff and her counsel of record. Said sanctions shall be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of this order.

Case Number: 26NNCV00655 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Dept: T Arlene Aranes Zapanta DMD, Inc., a California Corporation vs. JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, a National Banking Association, et al. Application for Order Admitting Ashley Mullen Pro Hac Vice Moving Party: Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Responding Party: None Tentative Ruling: Grant BACKGROUND On May 14, 2026, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Defendant") moved for an order granting the application for appearance pro hac vice by Ashley Mullen ("Mullen").

No opposition was filed. ANALYSIS I.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of an application fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and is not employed or regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities, in the State of California.

An active licensee of the State Bar of California must also be associated as attorney of record. The application must state: (1) the applicant's residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action. (Cal.