Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV40095, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40095    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord-tenant dispute arising from habitability issues. Plaintiffs are 23 tenants residing in the subject premises allegedly owned or managed by the Defendants, Hung R. Wang, Vivine H. Wang, Marvin Paez, and VHW, LLC. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on October 19, 2020. Defendants have cross-complained against Plaintiffs, with a First Amended Cross-Complaint filed March 28, 2022.

            On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff Jeremy Katz filed the instant motion to deem matters admitted as against Defendants Hung Wang and Vivine Wang. Defendants filed their opposition on February 20, 2025. Plaintiff filed his reply on February 26, 2025. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Responses to requests for admission are due 30 days after service of the requests, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250(a).) If a responding party fails to respond in time, the propounding party may move for an order deeming the matters admitted. (Id., § 2033.280(b).) The matters shall be deemed admitted unless the responding party serves substantially compliant responses before the hearing on the motion. (Id., § 2033.280(c).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to deem matters admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 for failure to provide responses. (Notice of Mtn. 2:6-8.) However, Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants served responses to the RFAs, albeit consisting solely of objections. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff is seeking “supplemental responses to Requests for Admission.” (Id., ¶ 5.) A motion to deem matters admitted is only appropriate to address the failure to respond in the first instance. Because Defendants responded, there is no basis to deem matters admitted.

            The proper motion to address deficient responses, including improper objections, is a motion to compel further responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(a) [“On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that . . . [a]n objection to a particular request is without merit or too general”].) However, this motion is subject to a 45-day jurisdictional deadline. (Id., § 2033.290(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants served their responses on June 17, 2024. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 4.) Thus, it is too late for Plaintiff to compel further responses to the RFAs.  

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to deem matters admitted is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord-tenant dispute arising from habitability issues. Plaintiffs are 23 tenants residing in the subject premises allegedly owned or managed by the Defendants, Hung R. Wang, Vivine H. Wang, Marvin Paez, and VHW, LLC. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on October 19, 2020. Defendants have cross-complained against Plaintiffs, with a First Amended Cross-Complaint filed March 28, 2022.

            On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff Jeremy Katz filed the instant motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories from Defendants Hung Wang, Vivine Wang, and VHW, LLC. Defendants filed their opposition on February 20, 2025. Plaintiff filed his reply on February 26, 2025.  

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

DISCUSSION

            Counsel for Plaintiffs Jeremy Katz and Adrian Katz substituted into the case in March 2024. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 3.) On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff Jeremy Katz propounded the subject Form Interrogatories on Defendants Hung Wang and Vivine Wang. (Id., Ex. 1, 2.) Plaintiff filed this motion based on Defendants’ purportedly defective supplemental responses served on December 19, 2024. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. 3, 4.) However, the December 19, 2024 responses were to the other plaintiffs’ form interrogatories. (Vivonia Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendants responded to Plaintiff Katz’s form interrogatories on June 17, 2024 and November 4, 2024. (Id., ¶ 10.)

            The form interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff Katz on April 18, 2024 (Taylor Decl., Ex. 1, 2) are not the same ones that the Wang Defendants responded to on December 19, 2024 (id., Ex. 3, 4). This indicates that they are different sets of discovery. Furthermore, the December 19, 2024 responses were served by Defendants Hung Wang and Vivine Wang. (Ex. 3, 4.) However, Plaintiff’s motion additionally seeks further responses from VHW, LLC. Plaintiff has no basis to compel VHW, LLC to provide further responses because the motion only concerns interrogatories propounded to the Wang Defendants.

            To the extent that Plaintiff seeks responses to the form interrogatories he served on April 18, 2024, Defendants responded to these requests on November 4, 2024, and the parties did not agree on a motion extension as to these responses. (Vivonia Decl. ¶ 10.) Thus, this motion is past the 45-day jurisdictional deadline. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff Jeremy Katz’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.