Jose Antonio Ceballos Cruz v. Cakebread Cellars

Based on the foregoing, the motion to quash the service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.

CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Nordby Construction Company v. Signorello Winery 23CV000838

CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to June 3, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The Judgment Debtor’s Claim of Exemption is not in the Court file. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (c) [“The claim of exemption ... shall be received in evidence.”].) The Judgment Creditor is directed to file, no later than May 27, 2026, the Judgment Debtor’s Claim of Exemption with the accompanying proof of service by the levying officer and a Proof of Service demonstrating that Judgment Creditor sufficiently “file[d] with the levying officer a copy of the notice of opposition and a copy of the notice of motion.” (Id., § 703.550, subd. (a).)

**at 9:30 a.m.** Jose Antonio Ceballos Cruz v. Cakebread Cellars 25CV002628

DEFENDANT CAKEBREAD CELLARS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Jose Antonio Ceballos Cruz is ordered to serve, no later than 14 calendar days from entry of the instant order, code-compliant responses to Cakebread Cellars’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Form Interrogatories – Employment, Set One. The motion to compel responses is DENIED as to the Requests for Admissions. The request for an award of monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff and its attorneys of record shall remit, within 14 calendar days from entry of the instant order, monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,300 to Cakebread Cellars courtesy of its counsel of record in the action.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

A. NATURE OF MOTION

Defendant Cakebread Cellars moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, subdivision (b), 2023.010, and 2023.030: (1) for an order compelling Plaintiff Jose Antonio Ceballos Cruz to serve, without objection, verified responses to Defendant Cakebread Cellars’ first set of Form Interrogatories - General, Form Interrogatories - Employment, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission; and (2) for an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, in the amount of $2,600, for the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this proceeding.3

Through its Memorandum, Cakebread asserts that “[w]hen a party to whom discovery requests are directed fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses” and cites to Sections 2030.290, subdivision (b), 2033.280, subdivision (b), and 2031.300, subdivision (b). (See Support Memorandum at 3:4-7.) Cakebread’s assertion is accurate as to interrogatories and requests for production, discussed below. It is inaccurate, however, as to requests for admissions.

Section 2033.280, subdivision (b) provides that “[i]f a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted . . ..” Section 2033.290, in turn, provides that a party may move for an order compelling further responses if “[o]n receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions . . . deems that . . . [a]n answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete . . . [or] . . . [a]n objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”

As discussed below, however, Cakebread does not, through its moving papers, ask the Court for an order deeming admitted the truth of matters asserted and/or the genuineness of documents.

B. FACTUAL FINDINGS

Based on the evidence submitted in support of the motion, the Court finds as follows.

1. On February 6, 2026, Cakebread propounded on Plaintiff Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One) – General, Form Interrogatories (Set One) - Employment, and Requests for Admissions (Set One) (collectively the Subject Discovery). (See Declaration of Ryan Tyre at ¶ 2, Exh. A (Tyre Decl.).)

2. The Subject Discovery was served on Plaintiff care of her attorneys of record in the action. (See id. at Exh. A.)

3. Plaintiff’s responses to the Subject Discovery were due on or before March 9, 2026. (§§ 2030.260, 2031.260, 2033.250.)

3 All subsequent statutory references herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

4. As of April 20, 2026, Cakebread had received no response to the Subject Discovery and had not requested any extension of the deadline for responding. (See id. at ¶ 7.)

5. Cakebread filed the instant motion on April 24, 2026.

Plaintiff appears to concede the foregoing by failing to file anything in opposition to the motion.

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS

1. Interrogatories

By operation of law, Plaintiff has, by failing to timely serve interrogatory responses, waived the right to exercise the option to produce writings pursuant to Section 2030.230, and has waived any objection to the interrogatories. (See § 2030.290, subd. (a).) Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to serve code compliant responses, without objection, to the subject discovery. (See id. at subd. (b).

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party...who unsuccessfully...opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (§ 2030.290, subd. (c).) Moreover, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed....” (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).) No grounds appear to justify Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the subject discovery, and no other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

2. Requests for Production of Documents

By operation of law, Plaintiff has, by failing to timely serve timely responses, waived any objection to the Requests for Production of Documents. (See § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to serve code compliant responses, without objection, to the subject discovery. (See id. at subd. (b).)

With exceptions having no apparent relevance here, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party...who unsuccessfully...opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (§ 2031.300, subd. (c).) Moreover, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed....” (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

No grounds appear to justify Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the subject discovery, and no other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

3. Requests for Admission

Where “a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response...[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction....” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Cakebread does not, through either its Notice of Motion or supporting papers, request an order deeming admitted the truth of any matters or the genuineness of any documents. (See Notice of Motion; see also §1010 [“the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state...the grounds upon which it will be made”], Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110 [“[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order”]; see also People v. American Sur. Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 719, 726.)

Cakebread asserts that “with respect to requests for admission, the responding party’s failure to serve a timely response results in the requests being deemed admitted.” (Support Memorandum at 3:9-11.) Not so. Section 2033.280, subdivision (a) provides that upon a failure to serve a timely response a responding party waives any objections to the requests for admissions. The Court, therefore, finds that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff has waived any objections to the requests for admissions.

However, as noted above, Section 2033.280, subdivision (b), provides that under the circumstances “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted . . ..” The Court finds nothing in the Notice of Motion or the moving papers that would put Plaintiff on notice that Cakebread seeks such order by the instant motion. (See People v. American Sur. Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 719, 726 [trial court did not abuse discretion in denying relief not requested in moving papers].)

4. Monetary Sanctions

The Court finds that both the hourly rate charged by Cakebread’s counsel, and the amount of time spent in preparing the motion are reasonable. (See Tyre Decl. at ¶ 9.) The Court further finds that the hourly rate is consistent with that typically charged in the community for similar work. However, the Court does not award fees for anticipated future time.

Based on the foregoing, the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of [$260/hr. x 5 hrs. =] $1,300.

PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Estate of Daniel Edward Gobeil 23PR000345

PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF HEIRS (Pr. Code, § 11700)

APPEARANCE REQUIRED. The Petition is in order, good cause appears for the relief requested, and no objections are in the file. (See Prob. Code, § 1022.) However, all interested parties have the right to appear and object to the Petition orally or in writing at the hearing. (See Prob. Code § 1043.)

Conservatorship of Patsy Ann Mallmann 24PR000299

[1] ACCOUNTING [2] REVIEW HEARING

TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to July 2, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to permit Conservator to prepare and file an accounting and provide notice of hearing to all persons entitled thereto. If an accounting is not timely filed and hearing noticed for the continued hearing date, counsel will be required to appear to explain the ongoing delay. The Conservator is also directed to file a Care Plan on Judicial Council form GC-355/356 prior to the continued hearing date. (See Prob. Code §§2351.2, 2352.5, subd. (c).)

In The Matter of John J. Morris 25PR000131

FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF ADMINISTRATOR ON WAIVER OF ACCOUNT AND PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF STATUTORY COMPENSATION TO ADMINISTRATOR AND ATTORNEY AND FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION

TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED, including fees as prayed. The August 25, 2026 Status Hearing Re: Final Distribution is therefore VACATED.

Estate of Christel Monika Marx 25PR000189

FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF ADMINISTRATOR AND PETITION FOR ITS SETTLEMENT, FOR ALLOWANCE OF STATUTORY COMPENSATION TO ADMINISTRATOR AND ATTORNEYS AND FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION

TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED, including fees as prayed. The September 18, 2026 Status Hearing Re: Final Distribution is therefore VACATED.

16