Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV23746, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23746    Hearing Date: November 6, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff Nathan Strauss (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants WEERTS REAL ESTATE, INC., a corporation; KIN’WA YUNG, individually and as trustee on behalf of Yung Family Trust; JANET RHEE, individually and as trustee on behalf of Yung Family Trust; KIN’KWOK YUNG, individually and as trustee on behalf of Yung Family Trust; and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, alleging causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability.

On September 9, 2023, Defendants Kin Wa Yung and Janet Rhee, individually and as trustees for the Yung Family Trust, Kin Kwok Yung, and Weerts Real Estate, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) filed four motions to compel Plaintiff’s verified responses to Requests for Admission, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; Production of Documents, Set One; and Special Interrogatories, Set One.  Each motion requests sanctions in the amount of $500.46 for a total of $2,001.84.  

The Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel Bradley S. Wallace and the Wallace Firm, PC’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff on October 6, 2023, effective as of the time of service of notice, which was October 30, 2023.

No opposition or reply has been filed in the instant motions.

II.                LEGAL STANDARD

a.      Compelling Initial Discovery

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; 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), 2031.300, 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.) If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.28;¿Sinaiko¿Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)¿¿

b.      Deeming Admissions Admitted

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding 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.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿ The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)¿ The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)¿ 

III.             DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that, even though four separate motions were filed, they are all identical in so far as they rely on the same legal arguments and exhibits. Thus, for citing purposes, the Court shall reference just one motion.  

Defendants contend they served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, Production of Documents, and Special Interrogatories on January 13, 2023.  (Motions, Exh. A.)  Defendants provided Plaintiff with multiple extensions, and Plaintiff finally served unverified responses on May 10, 2023.  (Motion, Asel. Decl. ¶10; Exh. B.)  The responses provided that a verification was to follow.   When Plaintiff failed to provide verified responses, defense counsel sent plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter on June 8, 2023, requesting verified responses by June 16, 2023.  (Motion, Asel Decl. ¶ 11; Exh. C.) Defense counsel sent another meet and confer letter on June 25, 2023, requesting verified responses by August 7, 2023.  To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses. (Motion, Asel Decl. ¶ 12; Exh. D.)

There is no evidence before the Court that Plaintiff served verified responses to Defendants’ discovery demands.  While Plaintiff has responded, the failure to provide verified responses when required to do so is deemed to be no response at all.  (Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel plaintiff’s verified responses to requests for admission, set one; form interrogatories; set one; requests for production of documents, set one; and special interrogatories, set one. 

Defendants also request sanctions in the amount of $500.46 for each motion in the total amount of $2,001.84 against Plaintiff and the Wallace Firm, which was his attorneys of record at the time discovery was due.  The court finds that sanctions are warranted as Plaintiff failed to comply with his discovery obligations and plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide verified responses to Defendants’ discovery requests.

As the Motions were not complex and remain unopposed and no reply has been filed, the Court awards Defendants’ sanctions in the total reduced amount of $1200 (approximately 6 hours in preparing the motions at $160.17 per hour; four filing fees, each for $60.00.) jointly  against Plaintiff Nathan Strauss and the Wallace Firm.

IV.             CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Motions to Compel Responses to (1) Request for Admissions, Set One; (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Requests for Production, Set One; and (4) Special Interrogatories, Set One are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Nathan Strauss is ordered to provide verified responses without objections. 

The Court also GRANTS Defendants’ requests for sanctions in the reduced total amount of $1200 against Plaintiff Nathan Strauss and the Wallace Firm.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 3rd day of November 2023