DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26-UDL-00935·sanmateo·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 8 days agoMotion withdrawn by agreement of the parties.

RICHARD TOD SPIEKER AND CATHERINE REILLY SPIEKER, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE SPIEKER LIVING TRUST AND DOING BUSINESS AS STONE CREEK APARTMENTS VS. GLADIS PERAZA, ET AL.

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

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
11
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

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Motion withdrawn by agreement of the parties.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