Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV38101, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38101    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiffs’ Motion For An Order: (i) Compelling Responses To Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories; And (ii) Imposing Mandatory Monetary Sanctions Of $2,239.37 Under CCP § 2030.290(c) On Defendant Carmen Moreno, As An Individual And Trustee. Plaintiffs’ Motion For An Order: (i) Compelling Responses To Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories; And (ii) Imposing Mandatory Monetary Sanctions Of $2,239.37 Under CCP § 2030.290(c) On Defendant Carmen Moreno, As An Individual And Trustee. Plaintiffs’ Motion For An Order: (i) Compelling Answers To Document Demands Propounded On Defendant Carmen Moreno Under CCP § 2031.300(b); And (ii) Imposing Mandatory Monetary Sanctions Of $2,239.37 Under CCP § 2031.300(C) On Defendant Carmen Moreno, As An Individual And Trustee. Plaintiffs’ Motion For An Order: (i) Waiving All Defendants’ Objections To Plaintiffs’ Requests For Admission; (ii) Deeming All Plaintiffs’ Requests For Admissions Admitted By Defendant; And (iii) Imposing Mandatory Monetary Sanctions Of $2,239.37 Under CCP § 2033.280(D) On Defendant Carmen Moreno, As An Individual And Trustee.

PEGGY PINTO and LUIS PINEDA (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint alleging that, in September 2015, Plaintiffs entered an oral lease, with owner CARMEN MORENO, an individual, and as Trustee of the CARMEN MORENO TRUST (Defendants), of an unpermitted portion of the single-family dwelling at 13501 West Terra Bella Street, Pacoima, having various uninhabitable conditions, and the Los Angeles Housing Department repeatedly instructed Defendants to cease tenant harassment such as attempted evictions, done in retaliation for tenants’ complaints.

Plaintiffs bring four motions requesting orders compelling Defendants to serve initial responses to form and special interrogatories and document requests, and deeming admitted admission requests, because Defendants served no responses and thereby statutorily waived discovery objections. Additionally, Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions against Defendants, as to each motion.

A motion to compel initial discovery responses need only show that discovery was properly served on the opposing party, the time to respond expired, and no response was served. Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905; Code Civ. Proc., §§2030.290 (compelling initial interrogatory responses), 2031.300 (compelling initial document requests). A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 404.

A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of failure to respond timely. Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.

“If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1435.

Here, the motions show that Defendants failed to serve discovery responses to properly served requests, and no oppositions have been filed to show substantial justification for failing to serve responses beyond the statutory time limits.

Therefore, the Court grants the unopposed motions, as prayed. The Court will sign and file proposed orders lodged by Plaintiffs.