Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV07896, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07896    Hearing Date: January 3, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  (1) Motion Of Defendant Marcel Bruetsch to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for  Admissions, Set No. 1 Admitted and Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Linda J. Maultsby in the Sum Of $1,860.00 and in Favor of Marcel Bruetsch;  (2) Motion of Defendant Capital Benefit, Inc. to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions, Set No. 1 Admitted and Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff Linda J. Maultsby in the Sum of $1,860.00 and in Favor of Capital Benefit;
(3) Motion Of Defendant Marcel Bruetsch To Compel Discovery Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents, Special Interrogatories And Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 And Request For Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Marcel Bruetsch, In The Sum Of $1,860.00; (4) Motion Of Defendant Capital Benefit, Inc. To Compel Discovery Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents, Special Interrogatories And Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1 And Request For Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Capital Benefit, Inc., In The Sum Of $1,860.00.

All unopposed motions are granted, as prayed.

Defendants MARCEL BRUETSCH and CAPITAL BENEFIT, INC. each request the Court to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses to form and special interrogatories, and document requests, and to impose monetary sanctions upon Plaintiff, because no responses have been served to the subject discovery requests. Defendants also each request the Court to deem admitted requests for admissions, and to impose monetary sanctions upon Plaintiff, because no responses have been served to the discovery requests.

Plaintiff has filed no opposition to any of the motions, even after appearing in court on December 15, 2023 for the separate demurrer hearing where the Court inquired about the upcoming discovery motions.

The failure to file a proper and timely opposition in trial court creates a waiver of the issues on any appeal.  Bell v. Am. Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1602;  Cabrini Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Haghverdian (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 683, 693  (appellate court will not consider any erroneous rulings where an objection could have been made).  

In the Supplemental Declaration of Kristi M. Wells, filed 12/28/23, the declarant reports that some but not all discovery responses have been received.  Because there is no opposition and no evidence that all subject discovery responses have been served, the Court is inclined to grant the unopposed motions in their entirety. The Court simply does not have any information from Plaintiff that would enable the Court to determine whether to exercise its discretion to make any other ruling at this time.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4^th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.

Therefore, the unopposed motions are granted.