Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01068, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV01068 Hearing Date: May 23, 2024 Dept: C
PEREZ v. CIGNALE
CASE
NO.: 22NWCV01068
HEARING:
05/23/24
#1
I.
Defendant
JESSICA DAWN CIGNALE unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff JOSE DEJESUS PEREZ’s
Responses to Defendant JESSICA DAWN CIGNALE’s Form Interrogatories (set one) is
GRANTED.
II.
Defendant
JESSICA DAWN CIGNALE unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff JOSE DEJESUS PEREZ’s
Responses to Defendant JESSICA DAWN CIGNALE’s Special Interrogatories (set one)
is GRANTED.
III.
Defendant
JESSICA DAWN CIGNALE unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff JOSE DEJESUS PEREZ’s
Responses to Defendant JESSICA DAWN CIGNALE’s Request for Production of
Documents (set one) is GRANTED.
V.
Defendant
KIMBERLY CIGNALE unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff JOSE DEJESUS PEREZ’s
Responses to Defendant KIMBERLY CIGNALE’s Special Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.
VI.
Defendants’
unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff JOSE DEJESUS Defendant KIMBERLY CIGNALE
Responses to Defendant KIMBERLY CIGNALE’s Request for Production of Documents
(set one) is GRANTED.
VII.
Defendant
JESSICA DAWN CIGNALE’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted as to
Plaintiff JOSE DEJESUS PEREZ is DENIED as MOOT.
VIII.
Defendant
KIMBERLY CIGNALE’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted as to
Plaintiff JOSE DEJESUS PEREZ is DENIED as MOOT.
Moving
Party to give Notice.
Motions to
Compel
No
Oppositions filed as of May 20, 2024. Due by May 10, 2024. (CCP §1005(b).)
If a party
to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at
all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers
thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the
discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond
has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party
is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the
matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial
discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely
filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148
Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all
objections.
Here, Defendants/Moving
Parties have shown that Special Interrogatories (set one), Form Interrogatories
(set one) and Request for Production of Documents (set one) were properly
served onto Plaintiff Jose DeJesus Perez on June 14, 2023. The deadlines to
respond have expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. These Motions were filed October 27, 2023— about
four months after service of the discovery. As of May 20, 2024, no Oppositions
have been filed to the subject Motions.
Therefore,
the Motions to Compel are GRANTED,
and Plaintiff Jose DeJesus Perez is ORDERED
to provide verified responses and documents, without objection by no later
than 15 days from date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may
be extended by stipulation of the parties. If any objections are asserted, it
will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this
Court’s order.
Motions to
Deem Admitted
“If
a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely
response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for
admission are directed waives any objection to the requests…. The Court, on
motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both
of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently
served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210,
2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was
the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) The court shall
make this order, 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. It is mandatory that the court impose a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7…on the party or attorney, or both, whose
failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this
motion.” (CCP §2033.280.) Unverified
responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior
Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) No prior attempt to resolve the
matter informally is required.
Here,
RFAs were propounded on or about June 14, 2023.
In
an untimely Consolidated Opposition to these Motions, Counsel for Plaintiff
indicates that untimely responses to the subject Requests for Admissions were
served on May 17, 2024.
Based
on the evidence produced in the untimely Declaration of S. Sean Bral, the court
finds that Plaintiff’s responses are in substantial compliance and that they
were served before the date of this hearing.
The
Motions are DENIED as MOOT.
Sanctions
Reasonable Sanctions
are GRANTED in the amount of $2,240.00 in favor of Defendant JESSICA DAWN
CIGNALE ($500 x 4 hrs.) + ($240 filing fee). Plaintiff JOSE DEJESUS PEREZ and
his counsel of record are jointly ORDERED to pay Defendant JESSICA DAWN CIGNALE
and her counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $2,240.00, payable
within 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.
Reasonable
Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $2,240.00 in favor of Defendant KIMBERLY
CIGNALE ($500 x 4 hrs.) + ($240 filing fee). Plaintiff JOSE DEJESUS PEREZ and
his counsel of record are jointly ORDERED to pay Defendant KIMBERLY CIGNALE and
her counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $2,240.00, payable
within 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.