Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 23PSCV00729, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00729, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

(1) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR $1,860.00 IN SANCTIONS is GRANTED.

(2) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR $1,860.00 IN SANCTIONS is GRANTED.

Sanctions are granted in the total amount (i.e., for BOTH motions) of $1,920. Additionally, for clarity as to the RFA motion, the court ONLY grants the motion insofar as to compel responses; the matters are NOT deemed admitted [see infra]. The court requests Plaintiff to provide proposed order(s) that comport with the ruling.

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff Lidia Gonzalez as Guardian Ad Litem for Ronny Gonzalez filed suit against Defendants Manuel Castro, Maria Rosario Castro, Lucia Melo for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability.

On August 29, 2023, default was entered against Lucia Melo and Maria Rosario Castro.

On September 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a POS as to Estate of Manuel Castro, sued herein as DOE 1.[1]

On October 19, 2023, the court issued the following minute order during the CMC hearing: “The Court informs the Defendant, Maria Rosario Castro, that she is currently in Default Status. On the Court’s own motion pursuant to CCP §403.040(a), the matter is set for a Walker Hearing as to whether the matter should be reclassified as a limited jurisdiction case under Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257. The parties are ordered to file briefs nine (9) calendar days before the scheduled hearing. If a party so desires, it may file a reply brief five (5) calendar days before the scheduled hearing.”

On December 5, 2023, the court issued, in pertinent part, the following minute order re: Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion); Status Conference Re: Representation of Defendant, Maria Rosario Castro; Case Management Conference: “The Defendant's oral motion for a continuance to hire Private Counsel is heard and GRANTED.” Based thereon, the court continued the hearing on the motion to reclassify (Walker motion) and “In light of the above and by Order of the Court, the matter is reserved for February 15, 2024, at the Pomona Courthouse in Department O at 10:00 a.m. for a Hearing on Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment.”

On January 10, 2024, the court stated, in pertinent part, the following during the Case Management Conference; Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion); Status Conference Re: Representation of Defendant, Maria Rosario Castro: “Plaintiff's Counsel and the Defendant stipulate to vacate the Default as to Defendant Maria Rosario Castro ONLY. Pursuant to the stipulation, the Defendant is to file an answer ONLY. The Court orders the default entered on 08/24/2023 as to Maria Rosario Castro vacated. The Defendant is given 30 days to Answer only. The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer due on or before February 9, 2024. The Defaults as to Defendants Lucia Melo and the Estate of Manuel Castro are to remain.” That same day, Plaintiff filed an application for entry of default judgment against Lucia.

On April 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the court’s motion pursuant to CCP 403.040(A) to reclassify case to limited jurisdiction.

On April 19, 2024, the court’s minute order reflected the following: Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Default Judgment Re: (1) Maria is DENIED in that she is not in default and (2) Lucia is DENIED without prejudice.

On July 17, 2024, the court held an IDC. The court’s minute order provides in relevant part the following:

The Court and Counsel confer re: discovery sought by Plaintiff's Counsel, specifically requests for admissions provided to Defendant at the end of March 2024 with a deadline of May 2024. The Defendant is to provide the answer for request for admission set 1 and form interrogatories due on or before September 3, 2024. Plaintiff's Counsel is to provide the Court with a Stipulation and Order due on or before tomorrow July 18, 2024.

On October 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed the two instant discovery motions. To date, no opposition has been received.

Prior to the IDC, Plaintiff’s Counsel represents that he sent two meet and confer letters to Defendant, but Defendant failed to answer Plaintiff’s letters. After the IDC on September 16, 2024 Plaintiff's counsel sent a third Meet and Confer letter to Defendant with a copy of Plaintiff's RFAs and Plaintiff's Demand for Production of Documents after Defendant called Plaintiff's counsel office and stated she misplaced these Discovery requests. (See Motions p. 3.) Plaintiff counsel gave Defendant until September 30, 2024 to provide responses to both discovery requests without any objection. However, to date, Defendant has failed to provide verified, objection-free, complete responses Plaintiff's discovery or otherwise correspond with Plaintiff’s Counsel. Therefore, the court compels Defendant to provide complete, full, and verified responses to the discovery requests.

Notwithstanding, as to the RFAs, the propounder of the RFAs must “move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction” under § 2023.010 et seq. [CCP § 2033.280(b).) Here, however, the motion’s caption does not seek the requests be deemed admitted nor does the motion substantively seek that relief; instead, there is a mere mention in the legal standard. Therefore, the requests are NOT deemed admitted; the court only orders Defendant to respond.

As for sanctions, the relevant statutes contain mandatory sanction provisions. Sanctions must be awarded against a party or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a Motion to Compel responses, unless the court finds the party of attorney acted with substantial justification, or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. As the court informed Defendant during the IDC of the importance of serving responses, as Plaintiff provided an additional extension, as no meet and confer was required as these are not motions dealing with inadequate responses, and as Defendant has not served responses nor an opposition to provide any reason as to why responses have not been served, the court must impose monetary sanctions. Per motion, Counsel seeks $,1860 (calculated as follows: 4 hours of work/motion for drafting motions and meet and confer letters at $450/hour + $60 filing fee/motion).

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court reduces the hourly rate to $300/hour and reduces the hours expended on the motion to 6 hours (as the motions are nearly identical) for a total of $1,920 for both motions ($1,800 + $120 filing fees).

Based on the foregoing, both motions are granted, and sanctions are awarded but in the reduced amount of $1,920 for both motions.

[1] An estate cannot be sued. (See Lazar v. Lazar's Estate (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 554 [“An ‘estate’ is not a legal entity and is neither a natural nor artificial person. It is merely a name to indicate the sum total of the assets and liabilities of a decedent, or of an incompetent, or of a bankrupt. [Citations.] An ‘estate’ can neither sue nor be sued.”].)

[2] Based upon her answer, it appears Maria is the owner of the property upon which the accident occurred, and that Plaintiff and Lucia are tenants and that their respective units are separated by a gate. Maria states Plaintiff (mother of the child) is responsible because she was aware of the dog on the property and Defendant Lucia (owner of the dog) is responsible because she did not obey the no dog policy and continues to live on the property despite an unlawful detainer action.