Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC04917, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04917    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 26

Clifford Johnson v. RAR2 – Villa Marina Center CA SPE, et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

(CCP §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.290.)

Background

            On August 7, 2023, Clifford Johnson filed a Complaint against several defendants, all either owners or lessors of real property, for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff alleges that on May 6, 2023, Plaintiff experienced difficulty with accessing the public accommodations the defendants allegedly provide. (Complaint, ¶ 4-6.) The motions now before the Court are:

1.      Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Pizzarito Inc.’s Answers to Special Interrogatories

2.      Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel RAR2 – Villa Marina Center CA SPE’s Answers to Special Interrogatories

(hereinafter, the Motions)

            Both Defendant Pizzarito Inc. (Pizzarito), and RAR2 – Villa Marina Center CA SPE’s (RAR2) oppose the respective motions aimed at them. No reply was filed.  

Discussion

Legal Standard

            If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2030.290, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Analysis

            Plaintiff provides the Declaration of Morse Mehrban (Mehrban Decl.) for both Motions. The declaration states that on December 1, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served Special Interrogatories (Set 1) on both Pizzarito and RAR2. (Mehrban Decl., ¶ 3.) Although Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with an email on January 16, 2024, well after the 30-day deadline, no responses were ever received. (Mehrban Decl., ¶ 3.) Defense counsel for both Pizzarito and RAR2 argues that he informed Plaintiff’s counsel he was in trial. However, the initial discovery was propounded on December 1, 2023, the instant Motions were not filed until February 27, 2024. Defense counsel fails to explain why no responses were served in the 3 months since the initial discovery was propounded. Therefore, the Motions are granted, and sanctions warranted. Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations”

·         Counsel’s hourly rate is $500 per hour

·         Counsel states that he spent 1 hour per Motion

Accordingly, the Court will impose a monetary sanction of $500 each on Pizzarito and RAR2.

Conclusion

            Both the Motion to Compel Pizzarito Inc.’s Answers to Special Interrogatories and the Motion to Compel RAR2 – Villa Marina Center CA SPE’s Answers to Special Interrogatories are GRANTED. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $500 each will be imposed on Defendants Pizzarito, Inc and RAR2 – Villa Marina Center CA SPE, Inc. and be awarded to Plaintiff. Both the response and the monetary sanctions are to be received by Plaintiff within 30 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice.