Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 24STCV03673, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03673    Hearing Date: September 26, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

Plaintiffs Eduardo Rodolfo Rojas Esquivel (Esquivel), Jose Carlos Garcia Herrera (Herrera), and Jose Eduardo Flores Jimenez (Jimenez), (collectively Plaintiffs), sue Defendant Belmont Enterprises, LLC (Belmont) and Does 1 through 10, pursuant to a February 14, 2024 Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment; (3) Nuisance; (4) Violations of Civil Code Section 1941.1 et. seq.; and (5) Negligence.

The claims arise from allegations that Belmont owns/manages the property located at 560 Gladys Avenue in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiffs allege that throughout their tenancy, Belmont failed to adequately maintain the property, leading to substandard living conditions and habitability issues, resulting in injury to the Plaintiffs.

On May 7, 2024, Plaintiffs Esquivel and Jimenez propounded Form Interrogatories Set One (FROGs), Special Interrogatories Set One (SROGs), and Request for Production of Documents (RFPs) on Belmont.

On August 9, 2024, Plaintiff Esquivel filed (1) a motion to compel responses to FROGs Set One and SROGs Set One and for monetary sanctions against Belmont Enterprises and its counsel in the amount of $2,000, and (2) a motion to compel responses to RFPs and for monetary sanctions against Belmont Enterprises and its counsel in the amount of $1,200.

The same day, Plaintiff Jimenez also filed (1) a motion to compel responses to FROGs Set One and SROGs Set One and for monetary sanctions against Belmont Enterprises and its counsel in the amount of $2,000, and (2) a motion to compel responses to RFPs and for monetary sanctions against Belmont Enterprises and its counsel in the amount of $1,200.

            Belmont has not replied to any of the motions, despite facially valid proofs of service attached to the motions.

II. Motion to Compel

A. Legal Standard

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).) To establish this ground, a movant must show: 

(1) Proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce]); 

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260, subds. (a), (b) [demand to produce]); and 

(3) No timely response (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce]).

The Court retains jurisdiction to rule on the merits of discovery motions even after requested discovery was provided after the motion was filed. (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.)

B. Analysis

Here, the motions were properly served on Belmont on May 7, 2024. (All Motions, Agge Decl., Exs. A-B.) The parties agreed to a discovery deadline of August 1, 2024. (All Motions, Agge Decl., Ex. C [email correspondence between parties agreeing to extend June 7 deadline to June 20, then July 11, then July 21, then August 1, 2024.].)

As of the date of the hearings on these motions, there is no evidence before the Court that Belmont has served the requested discovery responses.  

Accordingly, Plaintiff Esquivel’s motion to compel discovery responses (FROGs, Set One and SROGs, Set One) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Esquivel’s motion to compel discovery responses (Production of Documents) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Jimenez’s motion to compel discovery responses (Production of Documents) is GRANTED.

III. Sanctions

A. Legal Standard

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404 [interrogatories and demand to produce].) 

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party can keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses “as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part.” (Sinaiko, supra, at p. 409.)

B. Analysis

Plaintiff Esquivel request sanctions for the motion to compel discovery responses (FROGs, Set One and SROGs, Set One) [RES ID # 6552] against Defendant, Belmont Enterprises, LLC and his counsel, Jonathan Deer, in the total amount of $2,000.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $400.00/hour for 5.0 total hours of work as follows: (1) 4.0 hours to prepare, research, and review this motion, (2) 0.5 hours for the hearing, (3) and 0.5 hours to travel to and from court for the hearing.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the total amount of $2,000.00.

Plaintiff Esquivel request sanctions for the motion to compel discovery responses (Production of Documents) [RES ID # 2233] against Defendant, Belmont Enterprises, LLC and his counsel, Jonathan Deer, in the total amount of $1,200.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $400.00/hour for 3.0 total hours of work as follows: (1) 2.0 hours to prepare, research, and review this motion, (2) 0.5 hours for the hearing, (3) and 0.5 hours to travel to and from court for the hearing.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the total amount of $1,200.00.

Plaintiff Jimenez request sanctions for the motion to compel discovery responses (Production of Documents) [RES ID # 1650] against Defendant, Belmont Enterprises, LLC and his counsel, Jonathan Deer, in the total amount of $1,200.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $400.00/hour for 3.0 total hours of work as follows: (1) 2.0 hours to prepare, research, and review this motion, (2) 0.5 hours for the hearing, (3) and 0.5 hours to travel to and from court for the hearing.

As this hearing is set for the same day and time as the hearing for Plaintiff Esquivel’s motion to compel discovery responses for production of documents, the 0.5 hours for the hearing and 0.5 hours to travel to and from the court for the hearing are duplicative.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $800.00.

IV. Conclusion

The Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories) [RES ID # 6552] is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve fully compliant responses without objections within 20 days. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,000.00

The Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Request for Production) [RES ID # 2233] is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve fully compliant responses without objections, as well as the responsive documents, within 20 days. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,200.00

The Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Request for Production) [RES ID # 1650] is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve fully compliant responses without objections, as well as the responsive documents, within 20 days. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $800.00.