DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIV2301648·marin·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayGRANTED

STANLEY TWOMEY GRAY, ET AL. vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

MOTION – SANCTIONS – DISCOVERY FACILITATOR PROGRAM

Hearing date
Sep 9, 2026
Department
H
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Sanctions rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSTANLEY TWOMEY GRAY
DefendantTHE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DefendantPRIMA MEDICAL FOUNDATION
DefendantWINNIE WAI PENG

Ruling

Defendants Prima Medical Foundation and Winnie Wai Peng filed a motion for terminating sanctions Plaintiffs on July 16, 2026. The motion requests terminating sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2030.030, 2030.290, and 2031.300, on the grounds that they failed to comply with four prior discovery orders and have not provided responses to initial discovery propounded more than one year ago. A notice was served on Plaintiffs of the motion. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel was present at the ex parte hearing when the Court rescheduled the hearing date to September 9, 2026.

Despite such notice, 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.)

Based on the non-opposition, and upon review of the Court’s own docket, and the declarations filed in connection with this motion, the court grants the motion and orders that the complaint be stricken against Defendants Prima Medical Foundation and Winnie Wai Peng. In light of this ruling, the court denies Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions.

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 September, 2026 is as follows:

CV2301648

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