Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV46671, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21STCV46671    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Samuel E. Anguiano and Patricia J. Anguiano

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a contract for sale of real property.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) was filed on July 13, 2022 and alleges specific performance for the sale of real property.

On October 10, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to compel (1) the production of documents as to Plaintiff Joseph Ferencz and Robert Ferencz (the “RFP Motion”); (2) form interrogatories as to Plaintiff Joseph Ferencz and Robert Ferencz (the “FROG Motion”); (3) special interrogatories as to Plaintiff Joseph Ferencz and Robert Ferencz (the “SPROG Motion”); and (4) motion for order deeming matters to be admitted against Plaintiff Robert Ferencz (the “RFA Motion”).  On October 11, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for order deeming matters to be admitted against Plaintiff Joseph Ferencz (the “RFA Motion”).  To date, no oppositions have been filed.  There are a total of 8 discovery motions set for hearing on March 27, 2024, 4 types of motions for each of the Plaintiffs (collectively the “Motions”).

DISCUSSION

Request for Production of Documents

            Where there has been no timely response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Interrogatories

            Under CCP section 2030.290, subdivision (b), when a party directs interrogatories towards a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.  (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.)

Requests for Admissions

Under CCP section 2033.280, subdivision (a), where requests for admission are propounded on a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the requests.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  The requesting 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, as well as for a monetary sanction.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The court must grant a motion to have admission requests deemed admitted where responses have not been served prior to the hearing, or, if such responses were served, they were not in substantial compliance with CCP section 2033.220.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion.  (Id.)

Analysis

Plaintiff served the discovery requests at issue in the Motions on April 21, 2023.  (See Declaration of Jason J. Sancen (“Sancen Decl.”) ¶ 2.)  The Court notes that the Motions contain the same underlying facts.  As of the filing of the Motions, Plaintiffs have not provided responses.  (Sancen Decl. ¶ 9.)

As they are unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motions.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  Plaintiffs are ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the discovery requests discussed in the Motions within 20 days of this order.  The RFAs at issue in the RFA Motion are deemed admitted.  

Monetary Sanctions

CCP § 2023.030(a) says that “[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.”  A misuse of the discovery process is failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.  (CCP § 2023.010(d).) 

Defendants’ counsel, Jason J. Sancen, declares that: (1) his regular billing rate is $300.00 per hour; (2) he spent over 1.5 hours preparing each motion and anticipates spending another 1.5 hours in reviewing Plaintiffs’ oppositions and preparing a reply; and (3) 1.5 hours attending the hearing for each motion if each motion is heard on different dates.  (Sancen Decl. at ¶ 12.)  Thus, counsel requests a total of $5,640.00, which consists of 4.5 hours by counsel’s hourly rate of $300.00 for each motion (4) plus the $60.00 filing fee for each motion.  (Id.)  Although counsel claims that there are four motions in total, the Court notes that there are eight, and Defendants have paid a total of $480.00 in filing fees.

The Court exercises its discretion and awards Defendants reduced monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,680.00 which represents four hours of work on drafting the Motions collectively at an hourly rate of $300.00 per hour and $480.00 in filing fees, payable to Defendants and their counsel by Plaintiffs and their counsel within 20 days of the date of the entry of this order.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) 

DEFENDANTS are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

     Dated this 27th day of March 2024