Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00260, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00260 Hearing Date: August 17, 2022 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: August 17, 2022 TRIAL DATE: September 6, 2022.
CASE: GRAND AVENUE EL MONTE LP A CALIF. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. STEPHEN CONNER.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00260
MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Grand Avenue El Monte LP. a Calif. Limited Partnership (“Plaintiff”)
RESPONDING PARTY: No response filed.
SERVICE: Filed August 8, 2022
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide discovery responses to its form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents.
Plaintiff also moves for an order deeming admitted the truth of any matter and the genuineness of any documents in its requests for admission.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim against Defendant Stephen Connor (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owes past-due rent totaling $30300. Plaintiff filed a form complaint on May 4, 2022.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses to its form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents is GRANTED.
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 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
Plaintiff provides that on July 11, 2022, it served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents. (Block Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff provides that it had not received any verified responses by July 18, 2022. (Id. ¶ 3.) On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant via email. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff provides that it has yet to receive substantive verified responses. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has established that Defendant has failed to respond to its discovery requests.
Defendant is ordered to provide discovery responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted is also granted based on Defendant’s failure to respond.
Sanctions
Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $960.00 based on two (2) hours of work at a rate of $450.00 plus a $60 filing fee. There is however no evidence that the Defendant himself is responsible for the non-response.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses to its form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide code complaint, verified responses without objections within 10 days of notice of this ruling.
Plaintiff’s motion to deeming admissions admitted is also granted.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions totaling $960 against Defendant is denied.
Dated: August 17, 2022 ___________________________________
Joel L. Lofton
Judge of the Superior Court