Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 24CHCV00481, Date: 2024-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

(Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One)

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24CHCV00481

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Defendant’s verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One, and deeming the matters in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set One, admitted. Plaintiff further requests that the Court order monetary sanctions against Defendant in the combined amount of $3,300.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motions are granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 30 days. The matters in Plaintiff’s RFAs, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $850.00, payable within 45 days.

This is contractual action in which Plaintiff alleges that he loaned Defendant $36,600.00 so that Defendant “could pay the arrearages owed on the Sierra Property’s mortgage and stop foreclosure” of certain real property purchased by Defendant, located at 13006 Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, California 91390. (Compl. ¶¶ 6–11.) Defendant allegedly agreed to repay Plaintiff in full within 90 days, made an initial repayment of $1,100.00, but failed to make any additional payments. (Id. at ¶¶ 15–18.)

On 2/15/24, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging against the Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Fraud; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; (5) Unjust Enrichment; (6) Financial Elder Abuse; and (7) Conversion. On 3/29/24, Defendant filed his general denial.

On 6/20/24, Plaintiff served his first set of discovery requests on Defendant. (Decl. of Amy A. Mousavi ¶ 6.) On 8/5/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant’s responses thereto. No oppositions have been filed to date.

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to interrogatories if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2030.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to a request for production of documents if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300, subd. (b); 2031.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280, subd. (b); 2033.250, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

Here, as Plaintiff served his first set of discovery requests on Defendant by mail and electronic service on 6/20/24, the last day for Defendant to respond was 7/29/24. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013, subd. (a).) To date, Defendant has not provided responses to the subject discovery requests. (Mousavi Decl. ¶ 8.) As such, Defendant has waived any objections to the discovery requests.

The Court notes that Defendant has failed to oppose the instant motions. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant unopposed motions to compel Defendant’s objection-free responses to the subject discovery requests.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff requests a total of $3,300.00 in monetary sanctions to be imposed on Defendant. This amount encompasses: (1) 3.2 hours of Plaintiff’s attorney’s time spent preparing the motions; and (2) an anticipated 4 hours reviewing oppositions, preparing replies, and preparing for and appearing at the hearing, at counsel’s hourly rate of $425.00 per hour. (Mousavi Decl. ¶¶ 13–15.) Plaintiff also seeks to recover $60.00 in filing fees per motion. (Id. at ¶ 16.)

In granting the instant unopposed motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Plaintiff sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $850.00

The unopposed motions are granted. Defendant is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests within 30 days. The matters in Plaintiff’s RFAs, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $850.00, payable within 45 days.