Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action stems from a landlord-tenant dispute.  Plaintiff Xenon Investment Corp. entered into a written lease (“Lease”) with Defendant Garrett Bellrios, LLC (“LLC”) for commercial property located at 1106 N. La Cienega Boulevard, #206, West Hollywood, California (the “Property”).  The lease was personally guaranteed by Defendant Garrett Bellrios (“Bellrios”).   

The Lease contains another entity as co-lessee, Katrina Spears Babcock D.O. Corporation.  The Lease provides that each co-lessee signatory shall be jointly and severally liable for all obligations under the lease.   

LLC has been in arrears on its rental payments since April 1, 2020.  LLC has also sublet a portion of its interest in the Property without Plaintiff’s consent after Plaintiff’s determination that the sublessee was not financially suitable.  The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) breach of contract and (2) declaratory relief.   

Bellrios cross-complained against Katrina Spears Babcock and Katrina Spears Babcock D.O. Corporation (collectively the “Babcock Defendants”).  Bellrios claims he and the Babcock Defendants entered into an oral joint venture agreement.  Under the agreement, each party would be responsible for 50% of the expenses of the joint venture, which included the lease payments owed to Xenon.  The cross-complaint alleges claims for (1) indemnity, (2) contribution and (3) breach of contract.     

This hearing is on Defendant/Cross-Complainant Garrett Bellrios’ motions to deem admitted requests for admissions (set one) and to compel Cross-Defendant Katrina Babcock’s responses to requests for production of documents (set one) and form interrogatories (set one).  Bellrios also seeks sanctions.  As of the posting of this tentative ruling, no opposition was filed.     

DISCUSSION 

Requests for Admissions 

 

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) 

The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  While delayed responses may avoid a motion to deem admitted, they will not avoid monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280 subd. (c); Gonzales v. Harris, 2021 Cal. Super. LEXIS 29267 at *6 (even if delayed responses are served, sanctions are mandatory because the motion had to be brought, regardless of whether it is ultimately denied because responses are served before the hearing).) 

Here, on December 21, 2023, Bellrios served requests for admissions (set one) (“RFAs”) on Babcock.  (Shirdel Decl. ¶ 2.)  The responses were due no later than January 23, 2024.  (Id. ¶ 3.)  As of the date of the filing of this motion on February 2, 2024, Babcock has still not responded to the outstanding discovery nor has she served objections.  (Id. ¶ 4.)  Accordingly, the Court grants Bellrios’ motion to deem the RFAs admitted.   

Further, where a party fails to provide timely responses to requests for admissions, sanctions are mandatory.  Bellrios requests sanctions in the amount of $2,237.47 which comprises of 1.3 hours drafting the motion, 2.5 hours reviewing any opposition and drafting any reply and 1 hour to attend the hearing on this matter, at an hourly rate of $450, plus costs.of $70.21.  The Court concludes counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable considering prevailing rates in the Los Angeles market.  However, the Court concludes the hours requested are not reasonable as there was no opposition and no need to file a reply.  The Court, therefore, reduces the amount of sanctions sought to $1,105.21 (2.3 x $450 plus $70.21).      

 

 

 

Requests for Document Production 

 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

Here, on December 21, 2023, Bellrios served document requests on Babcock.  (Shirdel Decl. ¶ 2.)   Responses were due no later than January 23, 2024.  (Id. ¶ 3.)  As of the date of the filing of this motion on February 2, 2024, Babcock has not responded to the outstanding discovery nor has she served objections.  (Id. ¶ 4.)  Accordingly, the Court grants Bellrios’ motion to compel responses to his requests for production (set one).   

Bellrios seeks sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300.  Under § 2031.300, sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a¿response, unless a court makes certain findings. (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§2031.300(c).)  Plaintiff did not file any opposition.  However,¿sanctions may be awarded, even though¿no opposition was filed, pursuant to¿Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1348(a). 

Rule 3.1348(a) states: “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.”   

Bellrios seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,282.47, comprising of 1.4 hours drafting the motion, 2.5 hours reviewing any opposition and drafting any reply brief, and 1.0 hour attending the hearing on the motion, at an hourly rate of $450 plus costs of $70.21.  The Court concludes counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable considering prevailing market rates.  However, the Court concludes the hours requested are not reasonable as there was no opposition and no need to file a reply.  Also, counsel’s attendance at the hearing is already accounted for in the award of sanctions associated with the motion to deem RFAs admitted.  The Court, therefore, awards sanctions in the amount of $700.21 (1.4 x $450 plus $70.21).      

Form Interrogatories  

Where 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 need 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.)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) 

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c).) 

Here, Bellrios served form interrogatories (set one) on Babcock on December 21, 2023.  (Shirdel Decl. ¶ 2.)  Responses were due by January 23, 2024.  (Id. ¶ 3.)  As of the date of the filing of this motion on February 2, 2024, Babcock had not responded nor did she serve any objections.  (Id. ¶ 4.)  As the time to respond has expired and Babcock has not responded, the Court grants Bellrios’ motion to compel responses to his form interrogatories (set one).   

Bellrios also seeks sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.  While no opposition was filed, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1348(a) authorizes sanctions in the absence of an opposition.  Bellrios seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,282.47, comprising of 1.4 hours drafting the motion, 2.5 hours reviewing any opposition and drafting any reply brief, and 1.0 hour attending the hearing on the motion, at an hourly rate of $450 plus costs of $70.21.   

The Court concludes the hourly rate is reasonable considering prevailing market rates.  However, the Court concludes the hours requested are not reasonable as there was no opposition and no need to file a reply.  Also, counsel’s attendance at the hearing is already accounted for in the award of sanctions associated with the motion to deem RFAs admitted.  The Court, therefore, awards sanctions in the amount of $700.21 (1.4 x $450 plus $70.21).      

CONCLUSION 

 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Bellrios’ motions to compel responses to requests for production (set one) and form interrogatories (set one).  The Court also GRANTS Bellrios’ motion to deem admitted requests for admissions (set one).  The Court further GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Bellrios’ request for sanctions.  Sanctions are awarded in the total amount of $2,505.63 against Babcock and in favor of Bellrios.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: February 29, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court