DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24-CIV-07873·sanmateo·Civil·Civil
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

LYUDMILA ZELENSKAYA VS. DIANA IRIS PATCHETT

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Hearing date
Jun 3, 2026
Department
28
Prevailing
Opposing Party
Next hearing
Jul 29, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Sanctions rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLYUDMILA ZELENSKAYA
DefendantDIANA IRIS PATCHETT

Attorneys

GULOMJON AZIMOVfor Plaintiff
STEVEN SOBIERAJfor Defendant

Ruling

June 3, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM LINE 3 24-CIV-07873 LYUDMILA ZELENSKAYA VS. DIANA IRIS PATCHETT

LYUDMILA ZELENSKAYA GULOMJON AZIMOV DIANA IRIS PATCHETT STEVEN SOBIERAJ

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Diana Iris Patchett’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to a renewed motion.

The parties are ORDERED to appear at a case management conference at 9:00 am in Department 28 on July 29, 2026. The case management conference scheduled in Department 30 is vacated.

Defendant’s Notice of Motion indicates that the hearing will be held on March 18, 2026. That date is stricken out on the filed copy, with June 3, 2026 typed in. No proof of service has been filed indicating that a corrected notice was served on plaintiff; service of the original notice is insufficient to provide notice of the June 3, 2026 hearing date.

Additionally, the Notice of Motion does not provide the location of the hearing as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b)(1).

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, defendant’s counsel 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 Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share