Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV11618, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11618    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 23, 2023, Plaintiff Michael Boyd filed this action against Defendants Megan St. Clair, Peter Burra, HALO Behavioral Health, Inc., Brandon St. Clair, and Paul Meyers. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on June 11, 2024, asserting 15 causes of action arising from the following facts.

            Plaintiff alleges that he was engaged to Kathleen St. Clair (Kathleen) until her death in May 2022. Kathleen’s two children, Defendants Megan St. Clair (Megan) and Brandon St. Clair (Brandon), were allegedly hostile towards Kathleen and resentful of the relationship between Plaintiff and Kathleen. When Kathleen was hospitalized for a heart attack, Megan allegedly used a California Advanced Health Care Directive (CAHCD) to place Kathleen in hospice, exclude Plaintiff from visiting, and prohibit Kathleen’s healthcare providers from communicating with Plaintiff.

The complaint alleges that Megan and her husband, Defendant Bryan Burra (Burra), falsely accused Plaintiff of having a criminal record as a pretext to exclude him from Kathleen’s care. Megan and Burra allegedly embarked on a scheme to investigate Plaintiff and fabricate and disseminate false information on Plaintiff. This scheme allegedly involved resources and employees of their business, Defendant HALO Behavioral Health, Inc. (HALO). Megan allegedly filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Plaintiff based on false information.

In November 2022, Plaintiff was hospitalized. Defendant Paul Meyers (Meyers), Kathleen’s brother, allegedly discovered this by calling the hospital and then informed Brandon. Brandon then allegedly took the opportunity to break into Plaintiff’s home, taking furniture and other property. Plaintiff alleges that Megan, Burra, and Meyers were either present at or assisted in the burglary and that Megan and Burra took possession of the stolen property. Plaintiff alleges that Megan and Burra burglarized his home again in January 2023.

On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel responses from Defendant Burra as to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. Defendant filed his opposition on February 11, 2025.

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

            Plaintiff moves to compel responses from Defendant on the grounds that Defendant did not verify the responses by the agreed-upon deadline. Unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Defendant served the verifications on January 22, 2025, the day after the motion was filed. (Loorz Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant avers that the delay was due to a ministerial error. (Id., ¶ 4.)

            Sanctions are unwarranted because the delay was inadvertent, and because Plaintiff is pro per. There is no substitution of attorney on file reflecting Plaintiff’s representation by counsel. “[A]n attorney who chooses to litigate in propria persona and therefore does not pay or become liable to pay consideration in exchange for legal representation cannot recover ‘reasonable attorney’s fees.’” (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is DENIED as moot. Sanctions are denied.