Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case Number: 23STCV27209, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV27209, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27209 Hearing Date: April 4, 2025 Dept: 76

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 1:48 PM on April 3, 2025.

Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1). The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.

As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on April 3, 2025.

Notice to Department 76 should be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email. The high volume of telephone calls to Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to appear is not given.

Plaintiff alleges uninhabitable conditions of the dwelling unit rental, which exposed Plaintiff to toxic mold.

Defendant 1538 N. Vista, LLC moves to compel responses to special interrogatories and for an order deeming admitted requests for admission, as well as sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant 1538 N. Vista, LLC’s motions to compel responses to special interrogatories and for an order deeming admitted requests for admission are MOOT.

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel or record, Law office of Alfredo Nava Jr., jointly and severally, is GRANTED in the total amount of $1,320 for the two motions. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days.

ANALYSIS

Motions To Compel Responses To Special Interrogatories

Defendant 1538 N. Vista, LLC moves to compel responses to special interrogatories, as well as sanctions.

In the opposition, Plaintiff represents that verified responses without objections were served on March 21, 2025. (Declaration of Alfredo Nava, Exh. A thereto.)

As such, the motion to compel responses is MOOT.

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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.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 Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel or record, Law office of Alfredo Nava Jr., jointly and severally, is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $660 (2 hours at $300/hour plus $60 filing fee—Declaration of Maurice A. McCall, ¶ 11.) Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days.

Motion To Deem Admitted Requests For Admission

Defendant 1538 N. Vista, LLC moves for an order deeming admitted requests for admission, as well as sanctions.

In the opposition, Plaintiff represents that verified responses without objections were served on March 21, 2025. (Declaration of Alfredo Nava, Exh. A thereto.)

As such, the motion to deem admitted is MOOT.

(Cal. Rules Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

Sanctions are mandatory. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2033.280(c).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction… on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).) The inclusion of the word “mandatory” in Section 2033.280(c) distinguishes sanctions under this statute from sanctions for other forms of written discovery: there is no “safety valve” allowing a party against whom a motion is brought to avoid sanctions upon a finding of substantial justification.