Judge: Fumiko Wasserman, Case: 21CMCV00150, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling
“INSTRUCTIONS:
If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court
appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other
parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the
tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day
before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties
will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all
parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is
called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its
tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then
no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.
If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may
either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
Case Number: 21CMCV00150 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: B
21CMCV00150 BERTHA VILLEGAS, et al. vs RAMON ROCHEL, et
al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
The First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) filed on February 17, 2022, alleges that Plaintiffs Bertha Villegas, Lourdes Villegas, Natalie
Farias, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Lourdes Villegas, Louie
Farias, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Lourdes Villegas, Alba
Lara, Amira Green, and Charles Supo-Orija (“Plaintiffs”) rent residential real
property from Defendants, Ramon Rochel (“Rochel” or “Defendant”), and his
alleged alter ego, Talace Corporation (“Talace”) (collectively “Defendants”).
(FAC, ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants refused to abate
uninhabitable living conditions, unlawfully increased the rent, and engaged in
a campaign of harassment and discrimination based on disability, race, and
gender. (FAC, ¶ 2, 3, 4.)
II. ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s
Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiffs argue that on August 10, 2023,
Defendant was served with Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Defendant has failed
to respond to the discovery request. Plaintiffs seek sanctions in the amount of
$840.00.
Defendant did not file an opposition. In accordance with Code of
Civil Procedure, section 1005, subdivision (b), any opposing papers must be
filed and served nine court days before the hearing. Any opposition filed after
November 2, 2023, will not be considered.
III. LEGAL
STANDARDS
The party to whom a demand has been directed or a request is
propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service, but the
parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such
agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2030.270, subd. (a) - (b).) If a party fails to timely respond to
interrogatories, the party “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 under
Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290,
subd. (a).)
“The 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
IV.
DISCUSSION
Gina Hong, counsel for Plaintiffs,
declares that on August 10, 2023, Special Interrogatories, Set One, was served
on Defendant. (Decl. of Gina Hong, ¶ 2.) Defendant’s counsel requested, and
Plaintiffs’ counsel granted, an extension of the deadline to respond through
September 26, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 3.) As of October 10, 2023, Plaintiffs’
counsel had not received responses. (Ibid.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court
orders Defendant to respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One, without
objections or exercising the option to produce writings, within 20 days of this
order.
As to the issue of sanctions, “…
the 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 compliance with a demand, 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.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).) Defendant failed to oppose this motion and
thus failed to present a substantial justification for failing to respond to Special
Interrogatories, Set One. The Court does not find any other circumstances that
make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Sanctions are awarded against
Defendant in the amount of $840.00 payable to Plaintiffs within 20 days of this
order.
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’
motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. The
Court orders Ramon Rochel to respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One,
without objections or exercising the option to produce writings, within 20 days
of this order. The request for sanctions is GRANTED.