PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANTS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 3, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
No. 25CV03022
SARGENT v. VOGLER, et al.
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
The motion is vacated for failure to notice the motion for the current hearing date and lack of proof of service.
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on January 30, 2026. That hearing was set for March 18, 2026, but the hearing date was vacated. On April 20, 2026, at a case management conference, the Court instructed plaintiff to reserve a motion date. Plaintiff thereafter reserved this hearing date (June 3) but failed to serve any updated notice of motion or proof of service for the new hearing date. If plaintiff intends to reset this hearing, a new notice of motion and related papers are necessary.
No. 24CV01011
MITCHELL v. MASHKOUSKAYA, et al.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANTS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
The motion is granted in part. Defendants Iryana Mashkouskaya and Luxury Boutique Inc. are ordered to serve verified code-compliant further responses to requests for admission, set one, nos. 1-12, no later than July 2, 2026. Defendants’ responses shall solely contain an admission, denial or a statement claiming inability to admit or deny. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).) Previous objections shall be preserved but are not to be included in these further responses.
The Court finds defendants’ responses to request no. 13 to be adequate and compliant.
Most of the requests at issue seek admissions based on cited statutes which the Court finds acceptable since requests for admission may ask the responding party to admit a legal conclusion. (Grace v. Mansourian (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 528-529.) The Court also does not find that including references to defendant’s own pleading violates the rule that the request must be separate and complete in and of itself. (
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?”
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 3, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
Plaintiff requested $7,435.00 in monetary sanctions based on 11.8 hours at $625.00 per hour plus a filing fee. The Court finds the hourly rate and time expended excessive for the motion and orders defendants to pay a total of $2,310.00 ($450.00/hr for five hours plus $60.00 in filing fees) in sanctions no later than July 2, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)