Nadia Bernardi vs Terence Alemann et al
Motion: Sanctions
Motion type
Causes of action
Parties
Ruling
force the court to guess which of the multiple objections apply to each of the multiple quoted statements or material. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, the court does not deem the evidence objected to by Plaintiffs material to its disposition of the Plaintiffs MSA.
(3) The Letter Brief Plaintiffs do not dispute, and appear to concede, that the Letter Brief was not filed within the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, and is not "based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1008, subd. (a).) The Letter Brief also does not persuade the court that the April Order is erroneous. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108 [general discussion].) Under these circumstances, the court declines to reconsider the ruling set forth in the April Order.
Tentative Ruling: Nadia Bernardi vs Terence Alemann et al Tentative Ruling: Nadia Bernardi vs Terence Alemann et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 08/28/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Sanctions Tentative Ruling
On August 8, 2024, plaintiff Nadia Bernardi filed her original complaint in this action.
On January 7, 2025, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (FAC). The FAC asserts two causes of action: (1) private nuisance; and (2) negligence. The first cause of action is asserted against defendant Terence Alemann; the second cause of action is asserted against Alemann and defendant Daniel Raymond Long dba Rincon Pool Design.
On May 5, 2025, Alemann filed his answer to the FAC, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 27 affirmative defenses.
On August 28, 2025, Alemann filed three discovery motions: (1) motion to compel responses to request for production, set one; (2) motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories, set two; and (3) motion to deem matters admitted. No oppositions were filed to these motions.
On January 16, 2026, the court granted the two motions to compel further responses and ordered further responses to the requests for production and to the interrogatories to be served by February 6, 2026.
On February 5, 2026, plaintiff substituted out her attorney and became self-represented.
On April 20, 2026, Alemann filed this motion for terminating sanctions and for an award of monetary sanctions. In support of this motion, Alemann filed the declaration of Dennis C. Loveridge, which states that no responses have been served in compliance with the court's January 16, 2026, order. (Loveridge decl., P. 24.)
No opposition to this motion has been filed.
On August 21, 2026, Alemann filed and served notice that no opposition had been filed.
Unless plaintiff Nadia Bernardi appears at this hearing and provides a satisfactory explanation for the failure to serve responses as ordered by the court, the motion will be granted for terminating sanctions as to defendant Alemann. In granting terminating sanctions by striking plaintiff's complaint against this defendant, the court will not award monetary sanctions.
Tentative Ruling: The People of the State of CA vs US Currency in the Amount of $42,037.67 and Judd Edelstein Tentative Ruling: The People of the State of CA vs US Currency in the Amount of $42,037.67 and Judd Edelstein Case Number
Cited authorities
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?”