2027536 – ALVAREZ, MARY vs. SEQUEIRA, LESTER – Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with the Court’s Orders Imposing Monetary Sanctions and Request for Further Monetary, Issue, Evidentiary and/or Terminating Sanctions – GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part, without prejudice.
Under the circumstances, the Court declines to resort to the imposition of terminating sanctions at this time. However, Plaintiff is again ordered to comply with the Court’s previous orders awarding monetary sanctions to Defendant.
Defendant may revisit the issue of additional sanctions based on Plaintiff’s continued non-compliance at the time of trial.
CV-19-005150 – COHEN, CYNTHIA ZOE vs. SFACC – a) Defendant Brian Cameros’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint – DENIED, without prejudice; b) Defendant City and County of San Francisco’s Joinder in Brian Cameros’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint – DENIED, as MOOT, based on the Court’s denial of the primary motion.
The proof of serv
Hearing Date
January 20, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
2027536 – ALVAREZ, MARY vs. SEQUEIRA, LESTER – Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with the Court’s Orders Imposing Monetary Sanctions and Request for Further Monetary, Issue, Evidentiary and/or Terminating Sanctions – GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part, without prejudice.
Under the circumstances, the Court declines to resort to the imposition of terminating sanctions at this time. However, Plaintiff is again ordered to comply with the Court’s previous orders awarding monetary sanctions to Defendant.
Defendant may revisit the issue of additional sanctions based on Plaintiff’s continued non-compliance at the time of trial.
CV-19-005150 – COHEN, CYNTHIA ZOE vs. SFACC – a) Defendant Brian Cameros’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint – DENIED, without prejudice; b) Defendant City and County of San Francisco’s Joinder in Brian Cameros’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint – DENIED, as MOOT, based on the Court’s denial of the primary motion.
The proof of serv