Motion to compel responses to set two of requests for production of documents and set one of requests for admission; Motion that certain matters in the requests for admission to plaintiffs Yuri Veber and Mila Veber be deemed admitted; Request for sanctions
Case: Veber v. Traverso Case No. CV2024-2606 Hearing Date: June 2, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.
Defendant BJ Heating & Air Conditioning’s motion to compel responses to set two of requests for production of documents and set one of requests for admission from plaintiffs Yuri Veber and Mila Veber and motion that certain matters in the requests for admission to plaintiffs Yuri Veber and Mila Veber be deemed admitted is DENIED AS MOOT. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, 2033.280.) On May 19, 2026, plaintiffs Yuri Veber and Mila Veber served responses to defendant’s requests for admissions (set one) and requests for production of documents (set two). (Knauss decl., ¶ 3.)
Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c); Bommakanty decl., ¶ 10.) The notice of motion did not include a request for sanctions, “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)
If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1312, or further notice is required.
5 of 5
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?”