Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20CMCV00237, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20CMCV00237 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: A
20CMCV00237
Baberly Dacaldacal, et al. v. Grace Garden Homeowners Association, Estrella
Tietz (Doe 1)
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT, ESTRELLA TIETZ, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs bought a residential unit at
a common interest development managed by Defendant, Grace Garden Homeowners Association
(“HOA”). On May 17, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to substitute
Defendant, Estrella Tietz (“Tietz”) for Doe 1. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
refused to intervene in a parking dispute between Plaintiffs and a neighbor in
violation of the Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”). Plaintiffs
allege claims for (1) breach of governing documents, (2) breach of fiduciary
duty, (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4)
breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (5) negligence, and (6) negligent
infliction of emotional distress.
II. ARGUMENTS
On September 12, 2022, Plaintiffs served Request for Production of
Documents, Set One; (“RFP 1”); Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FI 1”); and
Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFA 1”) on Defendant Tietz. Defense counsel
did not respond to Plaintiffs’ email of October 26, 2022 regarding the lack of
responses. Defendant did not serve responses.
On November 18,
2022, Robert Schachter, counsel for Defendant Tietz and the HOA filed a
declaration stating that defense counsel had prepared drafts of the responses,
but Defendant Tietz was out of the country, and the responses were delayed.
Defense counsel accepts responsibility for not obtaining a further extension
from opposing counsel. Defense counsel states that Defendant Tietz sent verified,
written responses to the discovery at issue on November 18, 2022. Declaration
of Robert Schachter, 2:18-21.
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents,
Set One
Where
a party fails to timely respond to a Form Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents, the court has authority to compel a response. Code
Civ. Proc., §2030.290(b), §2031.300(b). Untimely responses result in a waiver
of objections. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a), § 2031.300(a). Defense counsel
admits that the responses were delayed and purports to have served verified
responses. Declaration of Schachter.
However, Defense counsel served
responses by the HOA to RFA 2; and HOA’s response to RFP 2, Set Two. Schachter
declaration, .pdf pp. 4 and 50. Defense counsel also included Tietz’s Responses
to FI 1 and Tietz’s Response to RFP 1. Schacter declaration, .pdf pp. 9, 30. Therefore,
an order compelling Tietz’s responses to FI 1 and RFP 1 is not necessary. The
court grants Plaintiffs’ request to impose monetary sanctions against defense
counsel, Richard Schacter, for Defendant’s failure to timely respond to
authorized methods of discovery.
B.
Requests for Admission, Set One
Where a party fails to respond to
requests for admission, the court can deem the requests admitted against the
non-responding party unless it finds that the non-responding party has
subsequently served, before the hearing, a proposed response to the requests
that substantially complies with statutory requirements. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (c). Imposition
of sanctions is mandatory where a party’s failure to respond to RFA necessitates
the motion. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (c).
Defense counsel did not include in
his declaration a copy of Tietz’s responses to RFA 1 thereto. However,
Plaintiffs’ reply does not dispute that Tietz’s responses were served. Therefore, the court is inclined to deny the motion to
deem the requests admitted but grant the request for sanctions, which is
mandatory, if defense counsel can show that Tietz’s responses to RFA 1 were
served and are in substantial compliance with statute.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES
in part, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Dietz’s Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One; and to the Request for Production of Documents, Set.
An order to compel responses is no longer necessary since Defendant
subsequently served code-compliant responses. The court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
request for imposition of monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,275 ($425
x two hours to prepare the motion and attend the hearing, and one hour to
prepare the reply), payable by Robert Schachter to Plaintiffs within 10 days. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c) 2031.300(c).
Subject to defense counsel
producing a copy of Defendant Tietz’s verified responses to RFA 1, Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission is DENIED in part. However, the court
grants the request for imposition of mandatory sanctions of $850.00 (1 hour to
prepare the motion and 1 hour to prepare the reply x $425 per hour) against defense
counsel, Robert Schachter, payable to Plaintiffs within 10 days. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (c).