Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV32257, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV32257    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff 6611-6637 Hollywood (LA) OZ Owner, LLC moves to compel Defendant M.D.F. International, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories—General (Set No. One) and Form Interrogatories—Unlawful Detainer (Set No. One). The motions are unopposed.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery are GRANTED. Defendant shall provide full and complete responses without objection within twenty days.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are granted in the amount of $510 for each motion.  Defendant shall pay $1,020 directly to Plaintiff’s counsel within twenty days.

Background

            This is an unlawful detainer lawsuit. Plaintiff is Defendant’s landlord and alleges that Defendant breached the lease agreement by defaulting on payment of rent.

            The complaint was filed on December 6, 2024 alleging a sole cause of action for unlawful detainer of the premises pursuant to expiration of the lease term.

Legal Standard

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) 

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) 

Discussion

            Responses

On or about December 23, 2024, Plaintiff served on Defendant, via electronic mail, the subject discovery. (Shakouri Decl., ¶2, Exh. A.) Written responses to these interrogatories were due on or before January 2, 2025. (Shakouri Decl., ¶3.) On or about December 23, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel offered Defendant’s counsel an extension to the discovery, however, Defendant’s counsel failed to request an extension. (Shakouri Decl., ¶4, Exh. B.) As of January 31, 2025, Defendant has failed to respond to the discovery. (Shakouri Decl., ¶5.)

As Plaintiff properly served discovery requests and Defendant has failed to provide responses, the motions are GRANTED.

            Sanctions

As the motions are granted and Defendant has failed to provide responses or oppositions to the motions, sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff requests $1,185.00 for each motion based on 1 hour to prepare the motion, an anticipated 1 hour to review the opposition and prepare a reply, and 30 minutes to attend the hearing, all at the hourly rate of $450, plus a $60 filing fee. (Shakouri Decl., ¶¶6-7.) Based on the lack of any oppositions to the motions, the Court reduces the amount of sanctions to $510 for each motion based on 1 hour to prepare the motion and a $60 filing fee.