Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV18570, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV18570, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18570 Hearing Date: April 9, 2024 Dept: 30

NICOLAS HINOJOZA vs ELMER N URBINA, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production, and to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted are GRANTED. Defendant Juan C. Meza is ordered to provide verified responses to the discovery requests within 20 days of this order. The Court also finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions served on Defendant Meza.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in part. The Court orders Defendant Juan C. Meza and counsel of record Jenny L. Foley to pay sanctions in the amount of $460, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Discussion

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Admissions, and Request for Production of Documents on Defendant. (Sarukhanyan Decl., ¶ 2; Exhs. A.) Defendant’s verified responses were due on or before January 5, 2024. (Sarukhanyan Decl., ¶ 3). No responses were provided. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer. (Id., ¶ 5.)

As an initial matter, Defendant has filed an untimely opposition. “A trial court has broad discretion to overlook late-served papers and to resolve the matter on the merits.” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168 [“(E)ven if the service had been untimely, the trial court was vested with discretion to overlook the defect”]; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [“A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission.”].) The court refuses to consider the opposition. The opposition was due on March 26, 2024. Defendant filed the opposition on April 4, 2024, with no explanation at all for filing such a late opposition. This appears to have prejudiced Plaintiff in that no reply has been filed. The reply was due on April 2, 2024, even before the opposition was filed. Moreover, Defendant argues that a private detective informed Defendant’s counsel in October of 2022 that Defendant was in a vegetative state; this is not something that just occurred last week such that it would provide a basis for filing the untimely opposition. Thus, there appears to be no reason to have filed such a late opposition.

The Court notes that even if it were to consider Defendant’s opposition, Defendant has not cited to any law or rule that would preclude granting the motion in these circumstances. The statutes say nothing about impossibility. This is especially true where Defendant has possessed this information since October of 2022, and should have informed Plaintiff’s counsel in order to avoid the motion being filed in the first place, instead of ignoring Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempt to meet and confer.

As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff properly served discovery requests and Defendant failed to provide responses. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to a court order directing Defendant to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery requests served on Defendant. The Court also finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions served on Defendant. Therefore, the motions are granted.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and counsel of record. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) mandate the imposition of sanctions when the motion is unsuccessfully opposed. Here, as the motions are deemed unopposed, the request for sanctions in connection with these motions is denied.

However, sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true. (CCP section 2033.280(c).) Nevertheless, the amount requested for sanctions excessive for this straight-forward motion. Instead, the Court imposes sanctions against Defendant, and counsel of record Jenny L. Foley in the amount of $460 ($400 an hour, for one hour, plus $60 in filing fees), jointly and severally, to be paid within 20 days of this order.