Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV31615, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31615    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: 74

Denise Birtch v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.

Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions against Plaintiff Denise Birtch

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 [“All papers opposing a motion […] shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days […] before the hearing.”].)

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute over foreclosed real property.

            On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff Denise Birtch (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (Defendant) and others. The complaint alleges one cause of action for identity theft.

            On July 10, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with special interrogatories.

            Plaintiff never responded.

            On August 24, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to compel responses to the special interrogatories and request for sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿            If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) 

            If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, 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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿

DISCUSSION

            The court will grant this motion to compel because Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the special interrogatories at issue. In addition, sanctions are necessary. Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, and he has substantiated his request for attorney fees with an hourly breakdown of work performed. (Stoltzman Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) But because this motion largely duplicates Defendant’s counsel’s other motions, the court will adjust the award accordingly ($740 = $350 x (1 hour drafting motion + 1 hour preparing for and attending hearing) + $40 filing fee).

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the special interrogatories. The court orders Plaintiff to serve without objection Code Compliant responses to the special interrogatories within 10 days. The court orders sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $740 payable to Defendant by November 26, 2023.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission (Set One) Propounded on Plaintiff Denise Birtch and Request for Sanctions.

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 [“All papers opposing a motion […] shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days […] before the hearing.”].)

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute over foreclosed real property.

            On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff Denise Birtch (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (Defendant) and others. The complaint alleges one cause of action for identity theft.

            On July 10, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with requests for admission (RFAs).

            Plaintiff never responded.

            On August 24, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to deem admitted all matters set forth in the RFAs propounded on Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿            If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Further, the Court¿shall¿make this order, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing¿on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

            While tardy responses may defeat the motion, they will not avoid monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c) [“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction [Citation] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”].) 

DISCUSSION

            The court will grant this motion because Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the RFAs at issue. In addition, sanctions are mandatory. Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, and he has substantiated his request for attorney fees with an hourly breakdown of work performed. (Stoltzman Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) But because this motion largely duplicates Defendant’s counsel’s other motions, the court will adjust the award accordingly ($390 = $350 x (1 hour drafting motion) + $40 filing fee).

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to deem the RFA requests admitted. The court orders sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $390 payable to Defendant by November 26, 2023.