Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV16593, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16593    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 74

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 74

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Rampart 36, LLC

RESPONDING PARTIES:    None

Defendant Rampart 36, LLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Martin Quiroz Galvez to Provide Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiffs Gladys Del Socorro Amador and 82 other plaintiffs commenced this breach of habitability action against Defendants 511 Rampart, LLC and Rampart 36, LLC. On May 24, 2022, Rampart 36 (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed its motion for a order to compel Plaintiff Martin Quiroz Galvez (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) (the “Interrogatories”). The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿            If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

¿            If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿ 

DISCUSSION

Defendant served the Interrogatories on Plaintiff on March 10, 2022.  (Volcy Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)  To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Interrogatories. (Volcy Decl. ¶ 3.) Thus, the Court grants Defendant’s motion. The court orders Plaintiff to provide responses, without objections, to the discovery within ten days of this ruling.

Defendant also asks the Court to impose $485 in sanctions against Plaintiff. Defendant’s counsel fails to state the amount of time spent on the motion and her hourly rate in her declaration in support of the Motion.  (See Volcy Decl.)  Consequently, the court cannot determine the reasonableness of the fees. Thus, the court denies Defendant’s request for fees.

CONCLUSION

The court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s responses to the Interrogatories.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 21, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court