Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHUD00086, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHUD00086    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 03-04-25

Case # 23CHUD00086, Sierra Canyon Apartments #1, LLC v. Ochoa Bernabe, et al.

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant/Plaintiff Sierra Canyon Apartments #1, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling Cross-Complainant/Defendant Avril Valencia’s verified responses to Cross-Defendant’s first set of form interrogatories and $2,260.00 in monetary sanctions.

RULING: Motion is granted, and $1,022.50 in monetary sanctions is awarded.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On January 20, 2023, cross-defendant/plaintiff Sierra Canyon Apartments #1, LLC (Sierra Canyon) filed this unlawful detainer case against several defendants.  Defendants and cross-complainant Avril Valencia (Valencia), a minor acting through her guardian ad litem, Irma Y. Ochoa Bernabe, responded by filing a cross-complaint against Sierra Canyon alleging causes of action for (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Supervision; (3) Premises Liability; (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability; (5) Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation); (6) Fraudulent Concealment; (7) Negligent misrepresentation; (8) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Quiet use and Enjoyment (Civil Code 1927); (9) Breach of Contract; (10) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (11) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

Sierra Canyon propounded its first set of form interrogatories on Valencia on August 27, 2024.  Responses were due September 30, 2024.  Sierra Canyon granted two deadline extensions (October 30 and November 29, 2024), but no responses have been served.

On December 16, 2024, Sierra Canyon filed its motion to compel Valencia’s responses to its first set of form interrogatories.  No opposition has been filed.

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel form interrogatory responses must include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues mentioned in the motion before filing.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2016.040.)  After not receiving responses by the deadline extensions, Sierra Canyon’s counsel emailed Valenica’s counsel inquiring about responses.  (Declaration of Shanna M. Van Wagner, ¶ 7.)  On December 5, 2024, counsel sent Valencia’s counsel a letter requesting responses by end of day on December 9, 2024 and stating Sierra Canyon’s intent to file a motion to compel and a request for sanctions.  (Van Wagner Dec., ¶ 8, Exh. D.)  Valencia’s counsel never responded.  (Van Wagner Dec., ¶ 9.)

ANALYSIS

A propounding party may move to compel responses to form interrogatories where the responding party fails to provide any responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The propounding party must show the interrogatories were properly served, that the time to respond expired, and no response has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)  Unless excused by a protective order, the responding party must serve responses (an answer, objection, or election to allow inspecting or copy records) within 30 days after the interrogatories are served or according to an agreed upon deadline extension.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, subd. (a), 2030.270.)  Failing to respond within these time limits waives objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Sierra Canyon has shown that it properly served Valencia on August 27, 2024.  Valencia did not serve responses by the original deadline or any of Sierra Canyons’ subsequent deadline extensions.

Accordingly, the court grants Sierra Canyon’s motion to compel Valencia’s code-compliant, objection-free responses to its first set of form interrogatories.

            Sanctions

The court may impose sanctions against any party who “unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses 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).)

Sierra Canyon requests $2,260.00 in monetary sanctions against cross-complainant Valencia and her counsel.  Sierra Canyon’s counsel, Shanna M. Van Wagner, charges an hourly rate of $275.00.  (Van Wagner Dec., ¶ 10.)  The request includes the following: (1) 4 hours preparing the motion—$1,100.00; (2) anticipated 2.5 hours to review an opposition and prepare a reply—$687.50; (3) anticipated 1.5 hours preparing for and attending the motion hearing—$412.50; and (4) a $60.00 filing fee.  (Ibid.)

The court finds the hourly rates are reasonable, but the time spent on this motion is unreasonable because the issues are not complex.  Additionally, no opposition has been filed.  The court reduces the hours spent preparing the motion to 2 hours and the time anticipated to review an opposition and to reply to 0 hours.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s request in the reduced amount of $1,022.50: (1) 2 hours preparing this motion; (2) 1.5 hours preparing for and attending the motion hearing; and (3) a $60.00 filing fee.

CONCLUSION

Cross-Defendant/Plaintiff Sierra Canyon’s motion to compel code-compliant, objection-free responses to its first set of form interrogatories is granted.

Cross-Complainant Avril Valencia, a minor, by and through Her Guardian ad Litem, Irma Y. Ochoa Bernabe, is ordered to serve responses within twenty days (20) of this order.

Cross-Complainant Valencia and her counsel of record are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,022.50.  Valencia’s counsel is ordered to pay these sanctions to Sierra Canyon’s counsel within twenty (20) days of this order.

Sierra Canyon to give notice.