Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV00401, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22AHCV00401    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: P

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

LIHUI FAN,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

DEREK JONES; REALIZE VENTURES, LLC; JOCELYN REYES; AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 22AHCV00401

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

 

Date:   October 21, 2022

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

 

I.         INTRODUCTION

            At issue are unopposed discovery motions in an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff Lihui Fan (Fan) sues Defendants Derek Jones (Jones), Realize Ventures, and Jocelyn Reyes, seeking possession of real property in San Marino, California. Jones, who is representing himself, responded with a demurrer, which was overruled in August 2022. He thereafter filed an answer.

            Jones failed to provide responses to any of the discovery served on him by Fan. He has also failed to oppose these motions. Accordingly, the motions are granted.

           

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290 provides that if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling responses; it further provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a motion unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposition of the sanction unjust.

            Code Civ. Proc. §2031.300 provides that if a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand; it further provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a motion unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposition of the sanction unjust.

 

III.      ANALYSIS

            Based on the evidence presented, Jones was served with Form Interrogatories- Unlawful Detainer, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, on July 21, 2022. As of the date these motions were filed, no response have been received. (Declaration of Dana Seyler regarding interrogatories, ¶¶2-5 and attached exhibits; Seyler Declaration regarding document demands, ¶¶ 2-4 and attached exhibits.) Fan is entitled to the relief requested.

            Regarding the request for monetary sanctions, while the motions are well supported with evidence that the amount requested is reasonable, given Jones’s financial condition the Court finds that the imposition in that amount would be unjust. Accordingly, the sanctions request is reduced to 0.5 hours per motion for preparation (1 hour total) and 0.5 hours for appearance on the two motions, plus the $60 filing fee for each motion. 1.5 hours at $375 = $562.50. Adding the filing fees brings the total to $682.50.

 

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Fan’s unopposed motions to compel are granted. Defendant Jones is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories – Unlawful Detainer, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production, Set One, within ten days of service of this order. Defendant Jones is further ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $682.50 to Fan within forty-five days of service of this order. Fan is ordered to provide service of this order.

 

 

           

Dated:                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                                          MARGARET OLDENDORF

                                                                                 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT