DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26-UDL-00935·sanmateo·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing in 2 daysWITHDRAWN

RICHARD TOD SPIEKER AND CATHERINE REILLY SPIEKER VS. GLADIS PERAZA, ET AL.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
11
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffRICHARD TOD SPIEKER
PlaintiffCATHERINE REILLY SPIEKER
DefendantGLADIS PERAZA
DefendantPEDRO SANCHEZ

Attorneys

STEVEN T. NAUMCHIKfor Plaintiff

Ruling

August 31, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 22 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM 26-UDL-00935 RICHARD TOD SPIEKER AND CATHERINE REILLY SPIEKER, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE SPIEKER LINE 10 LIVING TRUST AND DOING BUSINESS AS STONE CREEK APARTMENTS VS. GLADIS PERAZA, ET AL.

RICHARD TOD SPIEKER AND CATHERINE REILLY SPIEKER, CO-TRUSTEES OF STEVEN T. NAUMCHIK THE SPIEKER LIVING TRUST AND DOING BUSINESS AS STONE CREEK APARTMENTS GLADIS PERAZA & PEDRO SANCHEZ PRO PER

DEFENDANTS: GLADIS PERAZA AND PEDRO SANCHEZ’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion withdrawn by agreement of the parties.

POSTED: 9:56 AM

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