Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV37724, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV37724 Hearing Date: December 5, 2024 Dept: 14
#12
Case Background
This is an action for breach of contract, breach of the
implied warranty of habitability, nuisance, negligence, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, wrongful eviction, and violations of Civ. Code, sections
789.3 and 1950.5(1). Plaintiffs allege they began living in Defendant’s
property as tenants in July 2021. The property suffered from defects affecting
habitability, including defective plumbing, rodent and insect infestation, defective
floors, dampness, dilapidation, and loose plaster.
On December 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Edgar, Vanessa, and
Alexis Cesareo filed their Complaint against Defendant Bernardina Herrera.
On May 19, 2023, Default was entered against Defendant.
On August 2, 2023, the Court granted the parties’
stipulation to set aside default.
On December 14, 2023, the Court sustained Defendant’s
demurrer in part.
On December 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint.
On March 8, 2024, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint.
On October 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed these motions to
compel discovery and to deem requests for admissions admitted.
Instant Pleading
Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s responses to form
interrogatories (FROGs), special interrogatories (SROGs), and requests for
production (RPDs). Plaintiffs also move to deem requests for admissions (RFAs)
admitted.
Decision
Plaintiffs’ motions to compel discovery are GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ motion to deem requests for admissions
admitted is GRANTED.
The Court awards Plaintiff $820 in sanctions for two
hours of attorney time at a rate of $350 per hour and $120 in filing fees.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay one $60 filing fee to the
Court.
Discussion
Plaintiffs filed an improper omnibus motion compelling
responses to both interrogatories and requests for production. Plaintiffs were
required to file each motion separately and pay a separate filing fee for each
motion. (Gov. Code, section 70617(f).) Plaintiffs must pay one additional
filing fee for a total of $60.
Plaintiffs moves to compel Defendant’s responses to interrogatories
and requests for production. Plaintiffs’ counsel alleges that he served the
discovery requests on Defendant on January 23, 2024. (Nielsen Decl., ¶2.) As of
the date these motions were filed, Defendant had not served responses. (Id.,
¶3.)
Plaintiffs’ motions to compel responses to
interrogatories and requests for production are granted because Defendant
failed to serve timely responses to the requests. Additionally, the motion is
unopposed. The lack of an opposition operates as a concession that the motion
has merit. See California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(a); see also Rule
3.1320(f); Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20. Plaintiffs’
motion to deem requests for admission admitted is granted for the same reasons.
Sanctions are mandatory here because Defendant failed
to serve timely responses to RFAs. Additionally, Defendant’s failure to serve
timely responses constitutes sanctionable discovery abuse under Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.010,
subd. (d). However, Plaintiffs’ demand for a total of $1,870 in
sanctions is excessive. Because this motion was unopposed, the Court awards
Plaintiff $820 in sanctions for two hours of attorney time at a rate of $350
per hour and $120 in filing fees.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ motions to compel discovery are GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ motion to deem requests for admissions
admitted is GRANTED.
The Court awards Plaintiff $820 in sanctions for two
hours of attorney time at a rate of $350 per hour and $120 in filing fees.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay one $60 filing fee to the
Court.
Sanctions and fees are to be paid withing 30 days of
notice of the Court’s order.