Judge: Daniel S Belsky, Case: 37-2022-00006057-PR-LA-CTL, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 20, 2023

09/21/2023  02:00:00 PM  504 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Daniel S. Belsky

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Probate  Letters Of Administration Discovery Hearing (Probate) 37-2022-00006057-PR-LA-CTL ESTATE OF GUADALUPE VALDEZ [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 07/05/2023

Pursuant to Superior Court of San Diego County, Local Rules, rule 4.23.7, the court's tentative ruling is as follows: The unopposed Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, and Motion for Sanctions are GRANTED.

The Court awards $2,860 in monetary sanctions.

I. BACKGROUND On February 14, 2022, Griselda Valdez ('Petitioner') filed a Petition for Letters of Administration with Authorization to Administer Under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (ROA 1.) The petition was supplemented. (ROA 8.) On February 17, 2022, a Notice of Petition to Administer Estate was served by mail on Olivia Valdez ('Objector'). (ROA 7, Notice filed Feb. 17, 2022.) This notice indicated a hearing date of May 3, 2022, on the petition.

The petition was pre-approved by the Probate Examiner in April 2022. Thereafter, on May 3, 2022, the Court granted the petition, appointing Petitioner as the administrator of the estate. (ROA 15, Minute Order filed May 3, 2022; ROA 16, Order for Probate.) The Court ordered bond in the sum of $475,000.00 to be posted and granted Petitioner full authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (Id.) On April 10, 2023, almost a year after the hearing on the petition, Objector filed objections to the petition based on promissory estoppel, breach of contract, and request for accounting. (ROA 28.) On July 5, 2023, Objector filed the instant motions: a Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290, 2030.300; and a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to CCP § 2023.010, 2030.290(b). (ROA 36.) The proof of service shows timely service of all the motion papers and the notice of hearing on Petitioner. (ROA 40, 43.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2995748 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ESTATE OF GUADALUPE VALDEZ [IMAGED]  37-2022-00006057-PR-LA-CTL The Court is not in receipt of any opposition from Petitioner.

A final accounting hearing is set for October 4, 2023. (ROA 32, Notice of Hearing.) II. DISCUSSION A. Notice of Motion 'A basic tenet of motion practice is that the notice of motion must state the grounds for the order being sought ... and courts generally may consider only the grounds stated in the notice of motion.' (Kinda v. Carpenter (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1277.) However, the purpose of the notice requirements 'is to cause the moving party to sufficiently define the issues for the information and attention of the adverse party and the court.' (Ibid.) Sometimes this purpose is met notwithstanding a deficient notice, such as when the supporting papers contain the grounds for the relief sought, even if the notice does not. (Ibid.) 'It also may be sufficient if the omitted issue, or ground for relief, was raised without objection before the trial court.' (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 138.) Here, the motions fail to comply with CRC 3.1110 and 3.1112, and CCP § 1010 because a Notice of Motion was not filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a) ['A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.']; Cal. Rules of Court, 3.1112(a) ['Unless otherwise provided by the rules in this division, the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least ...' a notice of hearing on the motion, the motion itself, and a memorandum of points of authorities in support of the motion.]; CCP § 1010 ['Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based.'].) Therefore, the motion is procedurally deficient.

Although there was no Notice of Motion, the first paragraph of the Motion plainly identifies the motions at issue and the legal bases for the motions. Thus, the motion papers sufficiently provide notice of the issues in the motion. Further, there is no objection by Petitioner based on notice. As such, the Court finds any objections to notice are waived, and notwithstanding the deficiency, the Court will consider the substance of the motion.

B. Substance of Motion Objector claims she propounded discovery on April 19, 2023, in the form of Requests for Admission, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. (ROA 47, O'Connor Decl., Exhs. 1, 2.) Responses to the discovery requests were due on May 24, 2023, but Objector has not received any responses. Objector attempted six times to obtain responses, including two meet and confer letters and an offer to discuss by telephone. Objector alleges that Petitioner has refused to respond to the discovery requests and thus, meet and confer efforts are not required by CCP §§ 2030.300(b)(1) and 2033.290(b)(1).

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party that propounded the discovery may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) '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.' (CCP § 2033.280(c).) A monetary sanction 'under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion' is mandatory. (Id.) The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) A monetary sanction 'under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2995748 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ESTATE OF GUADALUPE VALDEZ [IMAGED]  37-2022-00006057-PR-LA-CTL compel a response to interrogatories,' is mandatory, unless the Court finds substantial justification or other circumstances that make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2030.290(c), emphasis added.) Here, the motions concern initial responses to discovery and thus, a meet and confer is not required under CCP §§ 2033.280 or 2030.290, although Objector states counsel unsuccessfully attempted to meet and confer several times.

Objector served discovery on April 19, 2023. (ROA 47, O'Connor Decl., Exhs. 1, 2, Proof of Service.) Responses were due on May 24, 2023, but no responses were provided. The Court is not in receipt of any opposition from Trustee.

Therefore, the motion to deem admitted and the motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED. The truth of the matters and genuineness of documents specified in Objector's Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted.

C. Sanctions Objector requests $9,842.50 in sanctions, based on a billing rate of $350 and 27.95 hours of work, plus $60 in costs. (ROA 37, O'Connor Decl.) The request for sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c). CCP § 2030.290(c) authorizes sanctions where the motion to compel is unsuccessfully made or opposed, and such is not the case here: Petitioner is not the moving party, and no opposition was filed.

Further, considering the nature and difficulty of the issues, the scope of the motions (three motions combined into one), and the lack of opposition, the Court finds the amount requested is not reasonable.

Thus, the Court awards $2,860 ([$350/hr. x 8 hours] + $60 = $2,860) in monetary sanctions, to be paid to counsel for Objector no later than thirty days from the date of the hearing in this matter.

Attorney for Olivia Valdez is directed to serve notice of ruling in accordance with the provisions of CCP § 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2995748