Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV39863, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39863    Hearing Date: September 13, 2023    Dept: 74

Saladin Elmohammed v. Brookfield Properties Multifamily, LLC

Defendant Brookfield Properties Multifamily, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories 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 between a landlord and a tenant.

            On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff Saladin Elmohammed (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Brookfield Properties Multifamily, LLC (Defendant). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged breach of contract and defamation.

            On February 22, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with the form interrogatories at issue. Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses.

            On April 28, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories.

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

            Because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s form interrogatories, the court will grant this motion. In addition, sanctions are warranted. The court finds Defendant’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate reasonable and notes he has substantiated his request for attorney’s fees with a breakdown of work performed ($850 = ($395 x 2 hours (preparation of motion and declaration)) + $60.00 (filing fee)). (Brisco Decl., ¶ 6.)

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses and request for monetary sanctions. The court orders Plaintiff to serve without objection code compliant responses to the form interrogatories within 10 days. The court orders sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $850 payable to Defendant by October 13, 2023.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.