DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25626643·sf·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing in about 3 hoursMatter on calendar. Complete tentative ruling e-mailed to the parties.

ADRIANO BORTOLUCCI VS. MAYA PRIMAVERA GARCIA-URBANO

Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Admission (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories--General (Set One), And Requests For Production Of Documents (Set One); Request For Monetary Sanctions

Hearing date
Sep 9, 2026
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffADRIANO BORTOLUCCI
DefendantMAYA PRIMAVERA GARCIA-URBANO

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC25626643 - September 9, 2026 Hearing date: September 9, 2026 Case number: CGC25626643 Case title: ADRIANO BORTOLUCCI VS. MAYA PRIMAVERA GARCIA-URBANO Case Number: | | CGC25626643 | Case Title: | | ADRIANO BORTOLUCCI VS. MAYA PRIMAVERA GARCIA-URBANO | Court Date: | | 2026-09-09 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Admission (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories--General (Set One), And Equests For Production Of Documents (Set One); Request For Monetary Sanctions | Rulings: | | Matter on calendar for Wednesday, September 09, 2026, Line 9, DEFENDANT MAYA GARCIA-URBANO's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Admission (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Form Interrogatories-General (Set One), And Equests For Production Of Documents (Set One); Request For Monetary Sanctions. (Complete tentative ruling e-mailed to the parties). | |

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