Motion to deem RFA admitted; Motion to compel responses to form interrogatories; Motion for sanctions
February 25, 2026. On that date, the court continued the hearing to allow defendant Amerigo, LLC, to obtain counsel and to file proof of service of this motion on Plaintiff. Defendants are now both represented by Michael Danner. Douglas Provencher has substituted in as counsel for Plaintiff.
2. Motion to Reconsider Motion to Set Aside As noted above, this motion was continued to this calendar for two reasons. The first was to allow Amerigo, LLC to obtain counsel, which it has done. The second was to file proof of service of the motion on the Plaintiff. As of the time the court reviewed this matter, proof of service had not been filed. Regardless, in reviewing the motion itself, Defendants have only provided argument— none of which complies with the requirements of Civil Code of Procedure section 1008, as Defendants do not present any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. In addition, Defendants have not provided evidence supporting their position.
3. Conclusion and Order The motion is DENIED. Due to the lack of opposition, the court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.
3. 24CV07661, Clark v. Singh
This matter is on calendar for the motion of Plaintiff Gregory M. Clark (“Plaintiff”) to (1) deem Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), served on Defendants Harjit Singh and RJ 13, Inc. (“Defendants”) admitted or, in the alternative, to require Defendants to provide a response; and, (2) to require Defendants provide a response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,600.
1. Original Motion, Continuance, and additional requests This motion was initially heard on February 25, 2026. The court continued the matter to this calendar to allow Plaintiff to provide crucial missing evidence supporting the motion. Unbeknownst to the court, Defendants filed an untimely opposition to the motion on February 23, 2026, indicating discovery had been served. Defendants state verified responses to the Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatories were served on February 20, 2026. (Miller decl., ¶7.)
Despite receiving responses to Plaintiff’s RFA, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on June 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery and for Monetary Sanctions against Defendants containing a hearing date for this calendar. The Notice of Motion indicates Plaintiff’s request relates to RFA, Set One, and Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories. However, it also includes RFA, Set Two, and RFA, Set Three. Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of responses to form interrogatories; although he states they are “incomplete” apparently because they contain objections. (Clark decl., ¶25.)
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?”
Plaintiff states he received responses to his RFA, Set One, and RFA, Set Two. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel states no response has been received to RFA, Set Three. However, RFA, Set Three, was not part of the original motion on calendar. Therefore, this court will not address that issue.
2. Sanctions Plaintiff requests sanctions for having to bring the motion. The original motion sought fees in the amount of $2,600. Plaintiff’s counsel states his regular hourly rate is $650. Despite that it was Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to provide sufficient evidentiary support which caused this motion to be continued, Plaintiff requests an additional $1,300 for the supplemental filing, for a total of $3,900. Review of the motion does not support the amount requested. In opposition, Defendants’ counsel states the failure to serve timely responses was due to counsel’s inability to maintain consistent communication with Defendants. (Miller decl., ¶4.) This 3
vague statement is insufficient. No facts support finding Defendants’ inability to communicate was justifiable. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $900.
3. Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion requesting responses to his first set of form interrogatories and RFAs is moot. Sanctions are granted in the amount of $900. Plaintiff’s second motion pertaining to his RFA, Set Two, is also moot. With respect to the outstanding issue of Plaintiff’s RFA, Set Three, this court did not grant Plaintiff leave to add additional discovery issues to the initial motion. As such, the issue has not been properly noticed. The hearing on this calendar was only to address the first set of RFAs and form interrogatories.
In addition, Plaintiff’s subsequent Notice of Motion is confusing as it incorporates the prior issues as well as new issues, which may have been overlooked by Defendants. Therefore, as to Plaintiff’s request pertaining to his third set of RFA, the motion is denied without prejudice. If necessary, Plaintiff may re-file the motion confining the issue to that set of RFAs. Plaintiff should also note that omnibus discovery motions are not supported by the Discovery Act. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
4. 24CV07820, Pfendler v. City of Petaluma
Defendants City of Petaluma (“City”), Larry Modell (“Modell”), and Matt Maguire (“Maguire”)(together “Defendants”) demur to the Verified Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiffs Nicholas Pfendler, Donald McKinney, James Heppelmann, Mary Hable, Richard Tavernetti, and Randal Smith (“Plaintiffs”) on the grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; uncertainty; standing; as a result of the City’s abutter, necessity, and/or Danielson rights; and as being barred by governmental immunities.
1. SAC Plaintiffs’ SAC alleges that they own land next to or in the vicinity of a parcel of real property owned and controlled by defendant City. The City’s property is commonly referred to as the “Lafferty Ranch.” Plaintiffs allege that on February 20, 2024, the City obtained Encroachment Permit No. ENC23-0369 (“the Encroachment Permit”) from Sonoma County by making material misstatements and/or omissions concerning the existence and/or location of a driveway and the extent of any right-of-way, and thereafter engaged in conduct that interfered with Plaintiffs’ property rights. (SAC, ¶¶14-15.)
Plaintiffs administratively appealed the issuance of the February 20, 2024, permit, but the administrative appeal was denied on March 11, 2024. (SAC, ¶16.) On March 15, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted a claim to the City alleging nuisance conditions affecting Plaintiffs’ properties, including trespass and/or encouragement of trespass, destruction and disturbance of survey monuments, disrupting surrounding environmental habitat, increasing fire risk, and other damages that have occurred and will allegedly continue to occur unless enjoined. (SAC, ¶¶17-21.)
Plaintiffs allege the Encroachment Permit materials describe limited authorized work in the County Road right-of-way, including adding rock from the shoulder/backing of Sonoma Mountain Road toward an existing gate for year-round accessibility. (SAC, ¶28.) Plaintiffs allege that City authorized, coordinated, and/or ratified programs and have been conducting docent-led hiking programs which have caused people to trespass over Plaintiffs’ land and that these programs go beyond what is allowed by the Encroachment Permit and the City’s April 22, 2021, Notice of Exemption for a project titled “Lafferty Ranch Park: Docent Led Hikes.” (SAC, ¶¶30-35, 39-46.) 4