Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01345, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV01345 Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 Dept: C
CARROLL v. CERVANTES
CASE
NO.: 23NWCV01345
HEARING:
05/30/24
#1
I.
Plaintiff’s
unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant SANDY CERVANTES’ Responses to Form
Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.
II.
Plaintiff’s
unopposed Motion to Deem RFA’s (set one) Admitted Against Defendant SANDY
CERVANTES is GRANTED.
Moving
Party to give Notice.
No
Oppositions filed as of May 28, 2024.
Motion to
Compel
If a party
to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding
party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §
2030.290.) 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, Plaintiff
has shown that Form Interrogatories (set one), was properly served onto Defendant
Cervantes on July 18, 2023. The deadline to respond has expired, and no
responses of any kind have been provided.
This Motion was filed October 31,
2023— about three months after service of the discovery. As of May 28, 2024, no
Opposition has been filed to the subject Motion.
Therefore,
the Motion to Compel is GRANTED, and
Defendant SANDY CERVANTES is ORDERED
to provide verified responses, 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.
Motion to
Deem Admitted
The
unopposed Motion to Deem Matters Admitted as to Defendant SANDY CERVANTES is
GRANTED.
“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 July 18, 2023.
To
the Court’s knowledge, Defendant has failed to provide any responses.
Therefore,
the unopposed Motion is GRANTED.
Sanctions
are mandatory pursuant to the terms of CCP §2033.280(c).
Sanctions
Reasonable Sanctions
are GRANTED in the total amount of $2,000.00 for both Motions. Defendant SANDY
CERVANTES is ORDERED to pay Moving Party and their counsel of record sanctions
in the total amount of $2,000.00, payable within 30 days of the date of the
Court’s issuance of this Order.