Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01141, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01141    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (“RFPs”) is MOOT; Defendant is in default and thus has no obligation to respond to discovery.

Background

This is a collections case/breach of contract case arising from the breach of a settlement agreement. Plaintiff Scott Kawaski alleges the following against Defendant Allcom, Inc.:[1] In exchange for dismissing a lawsuit, Defendant agreed to pay a total of $124,392.08 in monthly installments, subject to late fees. Aside from some payments, there remains an unpaid principal of $107,930.30.

On April 18, 2023, the complaint was filed.[2]

On June 2, 2023, default was entered against Defendant.

On July 20, 2023, default judgment was entered against Defendant in the total amount of $113,623.29 ($94,955.81 in damages; $11,751.96 in prejudgment interest at a rate of 10%, $6,345.00 in attorney fees, and $530.52 in costs).

On February 5, 2024, the court conducted an IDC.

On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

On April 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Amended Judgment (hearing set for 5/9/24).

Legal Standard

Interrogatories: If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed 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…. (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” CCP § 2030.290.

RFPs: “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

Discussion

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff served written discovery to Allcom, the judgment debtor in default, in the form of special interrogatories and requests for production. To date, no response has been received.

Here, perhaps Defendants has not responded nor objected to discovery because the corporation is in default.” A defendant against whom a default has been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further affirmative steps in the action.(Bailey v. Citbank, N.A. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 335, 347; Steven M. Garber & Assocs. V. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 819.) In fact, a defendant has no right to notice of subsequent proceedings nor even right to participate in proceedings. (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.3d 381, 385-386.) Therefore, the basis of Plaintiff’s discovery motion is unclear when Defendant is in default (and default judgment has been entered).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, as Defendant is in default such that it has no rights nor obligations in the instant action, the motion is moot.