Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV01004, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV01004    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     January 17, 2023                                 TRIAL DATE: February 28, 2023.

CASE:                         MIDWICK COLLECTION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation, v. ASHLEY IU, an individual; WALTER IU, an individual, and DOES 1through 10, inclusive.

CROSS:                      ASHLEY IU, an individual; WALTER IU, an individual, v. MIDWICK COLLECTION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation; JUNG HOON HAN, an individual; DANIEL BRACKINS, an individual.

CASE NO.:                 21GDCV01004

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Midwick Collection Homeowners Association

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendants Ashley Iu and Water Iu

SERVICE:                              Filed December 14, 2022

OPPOSITION:                       Filed January 3, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed January 10, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants to provide responses to its form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for the production of documents. Plaintiff also moves for an order deeming the truth of the matter in its requests for admissions deemed admitted.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Midwick Collection Homeowners Association’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Ashley Iu (“Ashley”) and Walter Iu (“Walter”) (“Defendants” or “Cross-Complainants”) made improper modifications to Defendants’ property located at 2238 Zanuck Place, Alhambra, California 91803 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Property is subject to recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&R”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were aware of the need to submit proper applications and receive approval for any modifications but engaged in the modifications without approval. 

            Plaintiff filed this complaint on August 3, 2021, alleging two causes of action for (1) breach of covenant and injunctive relief and (2) declaratory relief.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is DENIED as moot.

            Plaintiff’s motion to deem the truth of the matters asserted in its request for admission admitted is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The same applies to a party that fails to respond to a request for document production. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), provides that if a party fails to respond to a request for admission, “[t]he 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”.

DISCUSSION

            This motion arises out of eight separate discovery requests served on Defendants on November 16, 2021. (Malone Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff provides that Defendants had not served responses prior to the date the present motions were filed. (Id. ¶ 7.)

            In opposition, Defendants provide, without providing supporting evidence, that they never received Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Defendants assert in their opposition that Plaintiff’s former counsel, Stephen Kirkland (“Kirkland”) had contacted Defendants on December 20, 2021, inquiring about the discovery at issue. Defendants assert that they never received the discovery requests or any subsequent discovery requests after their communication with Kirkland.

            With their opposition, Defendants provided their responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. In reply, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ responses are deficient. However, these motions are not the proper avenues to test the sufficiency of Defendants’ discovery responses. If Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ responses are deficient, it may file a motion to compel further with a separate statement.

            “Unless the court determines that the responding party ‘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,’ it must order the RFAs deemed admitted.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.) Here, Defendants provided their responses with their opposition to the present motions prior to the hearing.

            Because Defendants served their discovery responses, the present motions are denied as moot.

            Sanctions

            Plaintiff also requests sanctions totaling $2335. The court is cognizant of Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants only responded because of the present motions. However, Defendants are claiming that their failure to respond was caused by lack of service of the discovery requests. Defendants failed to submit any evidence to support their position other than heavily redacted documents in an unpermitted supplemental filing. However, based on Defendants’ claim that they never received the discovery requests and the timespan from the initial discovery until the present motion, the court finds that circumstances exist that would make sanctions unfair.

            However, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), provides, in part: “It 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.”

            In the present case, the court imposes sanctions on Defendants in the amount of $90 which should cover the filing fee for the motion regarding the RFA’s.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED as moot.

            Plaintiff’s motion to deem the truth of the matters asserted in its request for admission admitted is DENIED.

Dated:   January 17, 2023                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org