In The Matter of Louis Edward Bonetti

In The Matter of Louis Edward Bonetti 26PR000032

PETITION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE OF MINOR’S CLAIM (Pr.C. 3500 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to July 8, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The purpose of this hearing is to confirm petitioner’s filing of the “Receipt and Acknowledgement of Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account (form MC-356)” following the Court’s order approving the compromise of claim for a minor and order to deposit funds in a blocked account. There is no MC-356 form on file. This is the first continuance. If an MC-356 form is properly on file prior to the next hearing date, the review hearing may be vacated. If the form is still not on file, the Court will require appearances to explain the ongoing delay. The Clerk is directed to provide notice.

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

M. David Jester et al v. Matt Ospeck et al 24CV000226

[1] PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Matt Ospeck shall remit sanctions in the amount of $1,962.50 within ten (10) Court days of Notice of Entry of this Order to Plaintiffs’ counsel of record.

Plaintiffs 3840 Stonebridge, LLC and M. David Jester move, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280, subdivision (c) for an order: (1) deeming admitted the truth of matters specified in Requests for Admission to Matt Ospeck, Set One; and (2) awarding monetary sanctions against Matt Ospeck in the amount of $1,962.50.

Plaintiffs filed and served their motion on May 7, 2026. The last day to file an opposition to the instant motion was May 20, 2026. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Mr. Ospeck filed his opposition seven days late. Although Plaintiffs urge the Court not to consider the latefiled opposition, the Court finds that judicial economy is served by considering the opposition. This is particularly true, where, as here, Plaintiffs filed a reply in response to the late-filed opposition.

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, ... [t]he party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests [and] [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.”