DONNA KOPEC VS. ROBERTA WARNER, ET AL

September 11, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 6/UD Line 1 26-UDL-00884 DONNA KOPEC VS. ROBERTA WARNER, ET AL

DONNA KOPEC MARTIN M. EISENBERG ROBERTA WARNER PRO SE

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Demand for Production of Documents

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Donna Kobec’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Demand for Production of Documents is CONTINUED to October 9, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. on the U.D. Law & Motion Calendar to allow curing of the defect indicated below.

As a preliminary matter, the proof of service filed with the motion fails to state what documents were served. (Aug. 27, 2026 Proof of Service, § 4.) While it states that the documents purportedly served are listed in an attachment to the proof, the attachment is missing. (See id., passim.)

Therefore, the proof of service fails to set forth the exact title of the document served as required by subdivisions (a)–(c) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a in order to show proper service by mail pursuant to subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.

“Successful service by mail requires strict compliance with all statutory requirements, including those set forth in section 1013; the failure to comply deprives a court of jurisdiction to act.” (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) Accordingly, the motion may be continued for Plaintiff to file a corrected Proof of Service with a proper attachment demonstrating that the motion was in fact previously served on Defendant, or heard if it is filed prior to the hearing..

In the alternative, if Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with this motion, then the motion will be DENIED without prejudice to a renewed motion being properly noticed, served, and supported by valid proof of service.

To address this procedural defect, this tentative is deemed contested and moving counsel is to appear (Zoom is ok).

Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.