Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV01519, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES—UNLAWFUL DETAINER

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING

MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED THE FACTS SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

This is an unlawful detainer action. On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff, Charter Glen Co. LP, filed these motions to compel initial discovery responses from Defendant, Eun Ho Choi dba Sushi, to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories-Unlawful Detainer, Special Interrogatories, and Demands for Inspection and Copying. Plaintiff also seeks an order deeming admitted the facts set forth in Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant. Defendant is a self-represented litigant.

If a party to whom interrogatories or inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b).)¿ If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿ Failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. ¿(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a); 2033.280, subd. (a).)

A party moving to compel discovery responses under these statutory provisions is not required to meet and confer prior to filing the motion.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b); see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411 (Sinaiko) [citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906 for the proposition that “meet and confer” requirement “did not apply when propounding party sought order compelling responses to interrogatories and sanctions for responding party's failure to respond ‘within the statutorily permitted time’”].)¿¿¿¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿¿¿

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿¿¿

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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 Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories-Unlawful Detainer, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Inspection and Copying, and to deem admitted the Requests for Admission against Defendant.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff properly served Defendant with the at-issue discovery requests on March 13, 2025.¿ Defendant’s responses were due by March 20, 2025. In an unlawful detainer action, the party to whom interrogatories, inspection demands, or admissions requests are propounded have five days from the date of service to respond. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (b); 2031.260, subd. (b); 2033.250, subd. (b).) However, to date, Defendant has not served responses. Accordingly, all objections to the discovery requests are waived. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses to the interrogatories and inspection demands, and to deem admitted the requests for admission.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant. Given the court’s ruling, sanctions are warranted. In the context of admissions request, they are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the amount of $900, consisting of two hours at plaintiff’s counsel hourly rate.

The unopposed motions are GRANTED. Defendant Eun Ho Choi dba Sushi is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories-Unlawful Detainer, Special Interrogatories, and Demands for Inspection and Copying within 10 days of this order. Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted against Defendant.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Defendant Eun Ho Choi dba Sushi is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $900 to Plaintiff, by and through its counsel, within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court