Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 22CHCV00633, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 22CHCV00633    Hearing Date: February 4, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 8/6/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Southern California Edison Company

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to compel Defendant/Cross-Complainant RSM26 to respond to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Southern California Edison Company’s Form Interrogatories without objection, and to impose monetary sanctions against RSM26 and its counsel of record in the amount of $672.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a property dispute between the parties.

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) filed a Complaint against Defendants RSM26; Shahram Monasebian (“Shahram”); Farshad Monasebian (“Farshad”); Moise Monasebian (“Moise”); Tri-County Transportation, Inc. (“Tri-County”); Greenenvtech Grow, LLC (“Greenenvtech”); Preston McCormick (“McCormick”); and Does 1 through 50. The Complaint alleged two causes of action: (1) Trespass, and (2) Negligence. Subsequently, SCE dismissed Defendant Tri-County on May 4, 2023, Defendants Greenenvtech and McCormick on February 7, 2024, and Defendants RSM26, Shahram, Farshad, and Moise on March 11, 2024.

On May 3, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant RSM26 filed its Cross-Complaint and subsequently filed the operative First Amended Cross-Complaint on March 21, 2024, against SCE; Grace Chavez; Foothill Ventures, Inc.; Foothill Soils, Inc.; Fruitful Soils, Inc.; and Roes 4 through 20, alleging three causes of action: (1) Quiet Title to Recorded Easement, (2) Quiet Title to Easement by Necessity, and (3) Permanent Injunction. Subsequently, on April 23, 2024, SCE filed its Answer to the Cross-Complaint.  

On September 11, 2024, SCE filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motion”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs to be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Additionally, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response ... [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

A.    Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

SCE’s counsel, Hira Yoshihara-Saint (“Yoshihara-Saint”), attests that on June 13, 2024, SCE served its Form Interrogatories, Set One, on RSM26. (Yoshihara-Saint Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. “A.”) The deadline for RSM26 responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, was due on July 16, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5.) On July 25, 2024, Yoshihara-Saint contacted RSM26’s counsel, requesting responses to be provided no later than August 8, 2024. (Id. ¶ 6.) However, as of the time of filing the Motion, no responses had been received from RSM26. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Defendant/Cross-Complainant RSM26 failed to serve a timely response, thereby waiving any objection to the interrogatories, including those based on privilege or the protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

Nevertheless, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), “[t]he court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: ¶ (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. ¶ (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”

Here, RSM26 did not file an Opposition to the Motion. Nor did it move separately for relief from the waiver. Additionally, there is no record indicating any responses have been subsequently served by RSM26 prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the Court finds that

relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), is unavailable in this circumstance.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the unopposed Motion.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), “[t]he Court shall impose 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 compel a response to interrogatories, 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....”

Additionally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(a) further provides, “The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Underlines added.)

The Court finds that the mandatory sanctions apply in this case. The Court finds SCE’s counsel’s rate at $204 per hour to be reasonable. However, the Court adjusts the total hours to 1 hour, given that no Opposition or Reply papers were filed. (Yoshihara-Saint Decl. ¶ 9.)

Utilizing the lodestar approach, the Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $264.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $204.00 for one hour reasonably spent, plus a $60.00 filing fee.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART SCE’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Southern California Edison Company’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, as to Defendant/Cross-Complainant RSM26 is GRANTED.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant RSM26 is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Southern California Edison Company’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant RSM26 and its counsel of record are ordered to pay $264.00, jointly and severally, to the counsel of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Southern California Edison Company within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.