Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV13784, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13784    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff Jose Ramos filed the instant action against Defendant RCMI. The complaint asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed him to perform construction and upgrades to Defendant’s apartment complex but that Defendant only partially paid Plaintiff for his work. Plaintiff alleges that the parties had a written agreement. Plaintiff claims damages of $200,000.

            On March 17, 2023, Defendant filed the instant three motions to compel responses to requests for production, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery or filed an opposition to this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Discovery responses are due 30 days after service of the requests, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a).) If a responding party fails to respond in time, the propounding party may move for an order compelling the responses or deeming matters admitted. (Id., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b).)

DISCUSSION

            The subject discovery was served on January 26, 2023. (McClintick Decl. ¶ 4.) To date, Plaintiff has not served any responses. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and has provided no substantial justification for his failure to respond.

            Sanctions are warranted but reduced to $1,155, reflecting 3 hours at $325 per hour, plus $180 in filing fees. (See McClintick Decl. ¶ 10.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to compel responses are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve responses to the subject discovery within 10 days. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,155, to be paid within 30 days.