Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV00430, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00430, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

CASE NAME: Juan Unzueta Ontiveros v. Xebec Building Company, Inc., et al.

1. Defendant Wuillay Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Plaintiff Juan Unzueta Ontiveros to Form Interrogatories; and
2. Defendant Wuillay Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Request for Admissions Set One

The Court summarily DENIES Defendant Wuillay Plumbing, Inc.’s motions to compel further responses of Plaintiff Juan Unzueta Ontiveros to Form Interrogatories and Request for Admissions Set One. The Court also denies Defendant Wuillay’s corresponding requests for monetary sanctions.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,600.00 for the Form Interrogatories motion and $600.00 for the Request for Admissions motion, for a total of $2,200.00, but only as to Defendant Wuillay’s counsel. Wuillay’s counsel must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 20 calendar days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

This is a personal injury case. On February 9, 2024, plaintiff Juan Unzueta Ontiveros (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Xebec Building Company, Inc. (Xebec), Wuillay Plumbing, Inc. (Wuillay), and Does 1 through 100, alleging one cause of action for negligence.

On April 3, 2024, Wuillay filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for implied total indemnity, implied partial indemnity, declaratory relief – equitable apportionment. On August 8, 2024, Wuillay filed a Roe amendment naming Xebec as a cross-defendant.

On April 4, 2024, Xebec filed a cross-complaint against cross-defendant FJ Drywall, Inc., Wuillay, and Roes 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and express indemnity.

On May 9, 2025, Wuillay moved to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Admissions Set Two. On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff opposed the motions. Wuillay did not reply.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), further provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that on receipt of responses to requests for admission, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (c), further provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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., § 2033.290, subd. (c).)

Although not mentioned in Plaintiff’s opposition, the Court notes that Defendant Wuillay’s motions failed to comply with the timing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), which requires motions to be served at least 16 court days in advance of the hearing date, plus any applicable extension for method of service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); id., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Per the June 2, 2025 hearing date and electronic service of the moving papers, the correct filing and service deadline was May 6, 2025. Defendant filed and served the motions on May 9, 2025. (See Proofs of Service attached to moving papers.) Normally, an untimely motion deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear the motion. (See Harris v. Board of Ed. of City and County of San Francisco (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 677, 680; Diaz v. Pro. Cmty. Mgmt., Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204-1205 [“the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question. [Citations.]”].) But, given Plaintiff’s failure to raise this issue in the oppositions or otherwise provide evidence of how Plaintiff was or would have been prejudiced by the late filing, the Court considers the issue waived. (See generally, Opps.; Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697 [claim of inadequate notice was waived where the party opposed the motion eight days before the hearing, appeared and argued at the hearing, and did not request a continuance or argue prejudice because of the inadequate notice]; see also S. California Gas Co. v. Flannery (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 477, 491-492 [any due process violation was not prejudicial to the party where the party opposed the motion and failed to present evidence of what additional arguments would have persuaded the court if the party could have made those additional arguments].) The Court nevertheless admonishes Wuillay to comply with the filing requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward.

The Court notes multiple problems with Defendant Wuillay’s motions. First, as Plaintiff correctly argues, Wuillay’s motions are untimely, which deprives the Court of jurisdiction to rule on the motions other than to deny them. (Sexton v. Superior Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409-1410.) Wuillay’s motions indicate that Plaintiff served the supplemental responses at issue on January 13, 2025 via email. (Turchin Decls. ¶ 3 and Exs. 2; cf. Warren Jr. Decls., ¶ 7.) Thus, the deadline to move to compel further responses was March 3, 2025. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) Plaintiff also correctly notes that the fact the parties previously participated in an Informal Discovery Conference does not save the untimely motions. The Department 6 Courtroom Information expressly states that an Informal Discovery Conference does not extend the time within which a party must move to compel further responses. (Dept. 6 Courtroom Information, p. 3 of pdf.) The Court’s March 12, 2025 minute order also expressly stated that the scheduling of an Informal Discovery Conference would not extend the time within which a party must move to compel further responses. (Minute Order (3/12/25).) Neither party presented any evidence of a written stipulation to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses. Thus, Wuillay’s motions are denied.

Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DENIES Defendant Wuillay’s motions to compel further responses.

The Court further finds Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions appropriate, as the Court finds the motions were brought without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).) There is no evidence before the Court that shows Wuillay is at fault for these motions; rather, the fault appears to be entirely due to Wuillay’s counsel. (See generally, Warren Jr. Decls.; Turchin Decls.) The Court therefore will award monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Wuillay’s counsel in the reduced amount of $1,600.00 for the Form Interrogatories motion, comprised of 3.0 hours preparing the opposition and 1.0 hour appearing at the hearing on the motion, for a total of 4.0 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate of $400.00. The Court will also award monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Wuillay’s counsel in the amount of $600.00 for the Request for Admissions motion, comprised of 1.5 hours preparing the opposition to that motion. The grand total in monetary sanctions due is $2,200.00. Wuillay’s counsel must pay said monetary sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 calendar days of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.