Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV23501, Date: 2024-09-03 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.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Amcal Las Brisas Fund, LP, Amcal Multi-Housing, Inc., Las Palmas Foundation, The John Stewart Company, Percival Joseph Vaz (collectively, Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

This action arises out of a real property habitability claim for rental property.

On June 20, 2024, Defendants filed motions to compel responses by Plaintiffs to certain discovery requests (collectively, the “Discovery Requests”), consisting of special interrogatories, set one(“SIs”); form interrogatories, set one (“FIs”); and Requests for Production, set one (“RFPs”), and for an order that the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admissions, set one (“RFAs”) be deemed admitted (collectively, the Motions”). Plaintiff also seeks an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,460 as to each motion, except as to the RFAs, where the request is for $3,060.

Under Code of Civil Procedure (“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).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 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.)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an RFA, the party propounding the RFA may move for an order to deem the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an RFP, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response thereto. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

In the Motions, Defendants seek orders compelling Plaintiffs to provide responses to the Discovery Requests. Defendants served the Discovery Requests on Plaintiffs on January 18, 2024. (Declaration of Harry Safarian[1] (“Safarian Decl.”), ¶¶ 4-6.) Although they received two extensions of time, as of the filing of the Motions Plaintiffs had failed to provide any response to the Discovery Requests, the final deadline for which was March 27, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 5-7.)

Defendants request that all admissions be deemed admitted, all objections be waived, and Plaintiffs be compelled to answer all Discovery Requests, and produce all documents responsive to the RFPs.

Defendants’ Motions are unopposed and they are GRANTED. The Court orders that Plaintiffs serve Code-compliant, full and verified answers to the SIs, FIs and RFPs, without objection, on Defendants within twenty days of the date of this Order. All documents responsive to the RFPs are ordered to be produced to Defendants within twenty days of the date of this Order. The Court further orders that the RFAs are deemed admitted.

The Court also finds that monetary sanctions are warranted against Plaintiffs in the reasonable sum of $1,440, consisting of 2 hours total for the preparation of the Motions at $600 per hour, plus four $60 filing fees. This amount is to be paid to Defendants within twenty days of the date of this Order.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] A separate declaration of Harry Safarian was submitted with each motion; however, each reference to service is almost identical. Therefore, the Court refers to the Safarian Decl. in the singular. Although the motion to compel as to the SIs referenced the service of the FIs, the Court understands that the declaration is related to the SIs.