Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV25522, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25522    Hearing Date: March 13, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Breni D. Mayen Mejia (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories – general (set one), request for production of documents (set one), and request for admissions (set one) from Defendant Sergio Garcia (“Defendant”).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees on the grounds that Defendant has failed to provide sufficient information for the Court to award reasonable fees. 

Background

            On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff Breni D. Mayen Mejia (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Sergio Garcia (“Garcia”) and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive for: (1) Waste – Civ. Code, § 818; (2) Treble Damages – CCP § 732; (3) Negligence; (4) Trespass to Chattels ; and (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

            The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Garcia agree he would pay $1,450 per month in rent until July 30, 2022, when he would vacate the property. (Compl., ¶24.) Defendant Garcia failed to make the rental payments and refused to vacate the property. (Id. at ¶30.)

            On December 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the current motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories – general (set one), request for production of documents (set one), and request for admissions (set one). On January 16, 2025, Garcia filed an Opposition.

The matter came for hearing on January 16, 2025, and was continued to the current hearing date to allow the parties time to meet and confer further. (Min. Order, 1/16/25.)  No party has filed any further documents since that hearing.  Nor has any party taken the matter off calendar.

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff improperly combined its motions to compel further form interrogatories – general (set one), request for production of documents (set one), and request for admissions (set one). Multiple motions cannot be combined into a single filing. (See Gov’t. Code, § 70617, subd. (a)(4) (setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing);¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿(“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”).)  The Court would have been willing to overlook this procedural problem, but for the other more serious procedural issues discussed below.

Plaintiff’s motions are not accompanied by a separate statement for each of the discovery requests as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(3). In fact, Plaintiff merely refers to the initial discovery requests served on Defendant Garcia in the motion. (See Mot. at 4:23-5:15.) A separate statement is a necessary document that allows the Court to decide the motion in an efficient and straightforward manner. The Court denies the motion on the basis that Plaintiff has filed to file a separate statement as required by the rules.

Furthermore, Plaintiff filed this motion more than eight months after Defendant Garcia served his response to these discovery requests at issue, which is untimely under the Code of Civil Procedure. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c); 2033.290, subd. (c).) This is a jurisdictional issue that precludes the Court from ruling on the motion.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion.  The Court also denies the Defendant’s request for sanctions because a bare statement that counsel “estimates” fees to be $3,000 is not sufficient for purposes of such a request.