Skip to main content
Skip to main content.

Notice:

The court is aware of fraudulent messages and scams being sent to the public. For more information please click here.

C Norman Borgatello vs Nadia Bernardi

Case Number

25CV00254

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/13/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel; Motion for Admissions

Tentative Ruling

On January 14, 2025, plaintiff C. Norman Borgatello filed his complaint in this action asserting one cause of action for declaratory relief on a written contract. On March 19, 2025, defendant Nadia Bernardi, self-represented, filed an answer to the complaint generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 17 affirmative defenses.

On July 9, 2025, plaintiff served defendant by mail on attorney James Diefenbach with plaintiff’s request for admission, set one (RFA). (Walsh decl. re RFA, ¶ 4.) On July 16, 2025, plaintiff served defendant by mail on attorney Diefenbach with first sets of special and form interrogatories, and request for production of documents, set one (RFP). (Walsh decl. re interrogatories, ¶ 4; Walsh decl. re RFP, ¶ 4.)

No responses have been received. (Walsh decl. re RFA, ¶ 5; Walsh decl. re interrogatories, ¶ 5; Walsh decl. re RFP, ¶ 5.)

On October 16, 2025, plaintiff filed the pending motion for an order requesting that matters be deemed admitted. On November 4, 2025, plaintiff filed motions to compel responses to interrogatories, and to compel responses to the RFP. Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the motions showing service by mail on attorney Diefenbach on January 2, 2026.

There is no substitution of attorney filed with the court. “After appearance, a defendant or the defendant’s attorney is entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings of which notice is required to be given.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1014.) Until a substitution of attorney is filed with the court, service is required on the self-represented defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 284, subd. (1), 285.)

Service of notice of these motions on an attorney who is not of record is not effective service on the party. Moreover, because the discovery at issue was served on an attorney who is not of record, the service was not effective to commence the time for responses to that discovery by the party.

The motions are denied as premature.

Was this helpful?

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.