Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV03315, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV03315    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

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

Motion filed: 12/2/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jennifer Sabihy

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Canyon View Limited d/b/a Canyon View Estates and Shannon Nicole Siedenglanz

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories without objection.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from disputes over a homesite lease agreement.

On September 13, 2024, Plaintiffs Jennifer Sher (who later used the name “Jennifer Sabihy” in her filings) (“Jennifer”) and Kyle Sabihy (“Kyle”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Canyon View Limited d/b/a Canyon View Estates (“Canyon View”), Shannon Nicole Siedenglanz (“Siedenglanz”) (“collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 10. The Complaint alleges the following nine causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, (4) Trespass, (5) Nuisance (Civil Code § 3479), (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (8) Negligence, and (9) Constructive Eviction. Subsequently, Defendants filed their joint Answer to the Complaint on October 16, 2024.

On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff Jennifer filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to the Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motion”). Subsequently, Defendants filed their Opposition on February 11, 2025. No Reply papers have been filed.

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 Special Interrogatories, Set One

Plaintiff Jennifer states that on October 7, 2024, she served Defendants with the first set of written discovery requests, including the Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), via US Mail and email. (Jennifer Decl. ¶ 2.) Later that day, Jennifer resent the discovery requests upon Defendants’ request due to their inability to open the files included in Jennifer’s email service. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) On October 29, 2024, Jennifer learned that Defendants had retained counsel. (Id. ¶ 5.) She subsequently provided Defendants’ counsel with a copy of Plaintiffs’ notice of change of address along with their new contact information via email. Jennifer also notified Defendants’ counsel that she had not received responses to her written discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. “3.”)

Jennifer further asserts that she never received Defendants’ responses to her discovery requests via email, even though Defendants claim to have served her on November 7, 2024. (Jennifer Decl. ¶ 7.) Jennifer claims that she checked and discovered that “the said discovery was placed on the floor and ... by first class mail ...” (Id. ¶ 8.)

Jennifer claims that, as shown in the Exhibit 5, the discovery responses were “backdated [to] November 7, 2024 by first class mail with a barcode on the bottom right of the envelope.” (Jennifer Decl. ¶ 8.) She further contends that the envelope was not addressed to her but to Plaintiff Kyle who had not propounded any discovery to date. (Id. ¶ 9.)

Furthermore, Jennifer states that the postmaster at the U.S. Post Office scanned the barcode on the said discovery responses envelope and represented that the envelope did not come through the post office for delivery. (Jennifer Decl. ¶ 10.)

In their Opposition, Defendants argue that they timely served the responses to the SROGs, presenting two proofs of service dated November 7, 2024. (Dickson Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. “A.”)

The proofs of service state that a third-party adult, Anna Lara, attests under penalty of perjury that she served the following documents – “Defendant Shannon Nicole Siedenglanz Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One” and “Defendant Canyon View Limited DBA Canyon View Estates Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One” – by “placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated below... BY MAIL.” (Dickson Decl. Ex. “A.”) On the second page of both proofs of service, two recipients are listed – Jennifer Sher aka Jennifer Sabihy and Kyle Sabihy – at 20087 Canyon View Dr. Canyon Country, CA 91351. (Ibid.)

The Court finds that both proofs of service comply with the requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a, thereby establishing a rebuttable presumption of proper service was complete upon mailing. (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).) Additionally, the proofs of service establish that the responses were served timely with the 30-day statutory time limit (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260.)

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff Jennifer’s assertions regarding alteration of the postal date and the postmaster’s statements are inadmissible due to lack of foundation, speculation and hearsay. The Court agrees.

Here, Plaintiff Jennifer does not authenticate the exhibits in her declaration. Mere assertions that Defendants altered the date stamp on the envelope, without supporting competent evidence, constitute inadmissible speculation. Similarly, Jennifer fails to include a sworn declaration from the postmaster, making her assertion that the envelope never passed through the postal system inadmissible hearsay.

As such, the only admissible evidence in Jennifer’s declaration is her personal knowledge that, “[a]s of the date of filing of this motion no responses whatsoever have been provided regarding the Special Interrogatories.” (Jennifer Decl. ¶ 11.)

However, the Court finds that this evidence is insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service as established by Defendants’ filing of two proofs of service in their Opposition.

Based on the above records, the Court DENIES the Motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jennifer Sher’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.