Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02060, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02060    Hearing Date: April 30, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      April 30, 2024                                    TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         ANTONINA VALLE v. MIDDLERIDGE CONCEPTS INC., et al. 

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV02060

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Antonina Valle

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Middleridge Concepts, Inc. dba Bryant Heating and Air Conditioning

SERVICE:                              Filed and served January 8, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant Middleridge Concepts, Inc. dba Bryant Heating and Air Conditioning to provide responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and an order deeming the truth of the matters of the requests for admissions admitted.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury premises liability case. Plaintiff alleges that there was an open basement trapdoor in an unsafe condition for an extended time or was an unsafe and dangerous condition at the subject premises, which caused injuries to Plaintiff.

            Plaintiff filed a complaint on September 6, 2023, alleging general negligence and premises liability.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and have admissions deemed admitted are GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $300 per motion.

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

            Plaintiff provides that on October 10, 2023, the subject discovery was propounded on Defendant Middleridge Concepts. (Villaneda Decls. ¶ 3, Exhs. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel made numerous attempts to meet and confer to obtain the responses, but no responses were received. (Id. at ¶¶4-7, Exhs. B-D.)

            In opposition, Defendant has now provided responses, but as both parties point out, they are unverified.

Where a verification is required, an unverified response is ineffective; it is the equivalent of no response at all. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636; Allen-Pacific, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1550-1551 (disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983, fn.12.) Accordingly, Defendant’s responses are ineffective and deemed no response at all.

            As Plaintiff served the subject discovery and no verified responses were provided, the motions are GRANTED.

            Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $300 per motion against Defendant Middleridge Concepts and its attorney of record. (Villaneda Decls. ¶ 9; Notices of Motion.) Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, subdivisions (c), provides a court shall impose sanctions against a party who successfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response 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 of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), provides, in part: “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

            While there was substitution of counsel recently and prior counsel had some health concerns, verified responses have still not been provided. Accordingly, sanctions are warranted, and the Court finds the requested amount of $300 per motion to be reasonable.  

CONCLUSION

             If at the time of the hearing verified responses were not served then Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and have admissions deemed admitted are GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $300 per motion for a total of $1200.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   April 30, 2024                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org