DEFENDANT PFV, UTC, LC, D/B/A UNCLE TETSU’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LOUISE GRACE JAMES TO RESPOND TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,327.50 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY
June 9, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 13 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 6 25-CIV-02834 LOUISE GRACE JAMES VS. PFV, UTC, LLC, ET AL.
LOUISE GRACE JAMES J. FLORES VALDEZ UNCLE TESTU MICHAEL DI LANDO
DEFENDANT PFV, UTC, LC, D/B/A UNCLE TETSU’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LOUISE GRACE JAMES TO RESPOND TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,327.50 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court GRANTS defendant PFV, UTC, LLC, d/b/a Uncle Tetsu, erroneously sued as Uncle Tetsu (PFV)’s unopposed motion to compel plaintiff Louise Grace James to respond to Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 and for sanctions. PFV served the requests and despite assurances from plaintiff’s counsel that responses would be forthcoming, no responses have been served.
Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objection, to defendant PFVs Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days of notice of entry of order.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c). The court must award sanctions 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. Given plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, there are no facts to support a finding that the failure to respond was substantially justified. However, since there was no opposition or preparation of reply, the court awards three hours at $195.00 (a reasonable hourly rate) plus the filing fee of $60 for a total of $645.00, which the court finds is a reasonable sanction. The sanction is against plaintiff only. Plaintiff shall pay defendant $645.00 for this motion within 60 days of the notice of entry of order.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for defendant PFV shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
June 9, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 14 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 7 25-CIV-02834 LOUISE GRACE JAMES VS. PFV, UTC, LLC, ET AL.
LOUISE GRACE JAMES J. FLORES VALDEZ UNCLE TESTU MICHAEL DI LANDO
DEFENDANT PFV, UTC, LC, D/B/A UNCLE TETSU’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LOUISE GRACE JAMES TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,230.00 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court GRANTS defendant PFV, UTC, LLC, d/b/a Uncle Tetsu, erroneously sued as Uncle Tetsu (PFV)’s unopposed motion to compel plaintiff Louise Grace James to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1 and for sanctions. PFV served the requests and despite assurances from plaintiff’s counsel that responses would be forthcoming, no responses have been served.
Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objection, to defendant PFVs Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days of notice of entry of order. PFV served the requests and despite assurances from plaintiff’s counsel that responses would be forthcoming, no responses have been served.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c). The court must award sanctions 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. Given plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, there are no facts to support a finding that the failure to respond was substantially justified. However, since there was no opposition or preparation of reply, the court awards two hours at $195.00 (a reasonable hourly rate) plus the filing fee of $60 for a total of $450.00, which the court finds is a reasonable sanction. The sanction is against plaintiff only. Plaintiff shall pay defendant $450.00 for this motion within 60 days of the notice of entry of order.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for defendant PFV shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
June 9, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 15 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 8 25-CIV-02834 LOUISE GRACE JAMES VS. PFV, UTC, LLC, ET AL.
LOUISE GRACE JAMES J. FLORES VALDEZ UNCLE TESTU MICHAEL DI LANDO
DEFENDANT PFV, UTC, LC, D/B/A UNCLE TETSU’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LOUISE GRACE JAMES TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,035.00 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court GRANTS defendant PFV, UTC, LLC, d/b/a Uncle Tetsu, erroneously sued as Uncle Tetsu (PFV)’s unopposed motion to compel plaintiff Louise Grace James to respond to request for production of documents (set one) and for sanctions. PFV served the requests and despite assurances from plaintiff’s counsel that responses would be forthcoming, no responses have been served.
Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objection, to defendant PFVs Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, within 20 days of notice of entry of order.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is also granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c). The court must award sanctions 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. Given plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, there are no facts to support a finding that the failure to respond was substantially justified. However, since there was no opposition or preparation of reply, the court awards two hours at $195.00 (a reasonable hourly rate) plus the filing fee of $60 for a total of $450.00, which the court finds is a reasonable sanction. The sanction is against plaintiff only. Plaintiff shall pay defendant $450.00 for this motion within 60 days of the notice of entry of order.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for defendant PFV shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.