Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20CMCV00253, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CMCV00253    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: A

20CMCV00253 Phyllis Pugh-Robinson v. Frances Williams, Alfred Tatum

Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT, ALFRED TATUM, TO SET ONE OF FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED, SET ONE OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION: REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT, FRANCES WILLIAMS , TO SET ONE OF FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED, SET ONE OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION: REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

            The complaint filed on October 7, 2020, asserts that Plaintiff and Defendant, Frances Williams (“Williams”), own a 50 percent interest in real property granted to them by Ginesha Stradford, Plaintiff’s mother, and Williams’ sister. Plaintiff and Williams listed the property for sale and received an offer, but Williams did not sign the escrow papers.

Plaintiff subsequently learned that a forged deed purported to transfer her interest in the real property to Williams, who subsequently transferred ownership of the property to herself and her son, Defendant, Alfred Tatum as joint tenants. Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud-related claims, conversion, cancellation of instrument, for quiet title and declaratory relief.

            Plaintiff requests orders compelling both Defendants to serve initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents served on November 17, 2021. Plaintiff requests an order deeming admitted the Requests for Admission served on both Defendants on the same date. Plaintiff granted three extensions of time for Defendants to respond to discovery. Defendants did not serve responses. Defendants’ refusal to respond to written discovery warrants imposition of monetary sanctions.

            Although Plaintiff timely served Defendants with these discovery motions, Defendants did not file an opposition. 

            Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for response to interrogatories and 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). Defendants have not responded to any of the written discovery at issue although Plaintiff’s counsel permitted additional time to respond since both Defendants claimed they were hospitalized and could not respond. Declaration of Louie A. Ruiz, ¶¶ 3-4.

            Where a party fails to respond to requests for admission, the court can deem the requests admitted against the non-responding party. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c). Defendants did not serve responses to Requests for Admission, Set One. Declaration of Louie A. Ruiz, ¶¶ 3-4. Accordingly, the court deems the requests admitted against each Defendant.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS all four motions against Defendant, Williams and all four motions against Defendant Tatum. The Requests for Admission served on each Defendant are deemed admitted. Williams and Tatum are ordered to serve verified responses without objection to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One within 10 days after the hearing. Code Civ. Proc., §2030.290(b), § 2031.300(b).

            Monetary sanctions of $378 for fees and costs incurred are imposed against Defendant, Frances Williams, for each motion, for a total of $1,512 for all four motions, for Defendant’s failure to respond to authorized methods of discovery. Imposition of sanctions is mandatory where a party’s failure to respond to Requests for Admission necessitates the motion. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.

Monetary sanctions of $378 for fees and costs incurred are also imposed against Defendant, Alfred Tatum, for each motion, for a total of $1,512 for all four motions, for Defendant’s failure to respond to authorized methods of discovery. Imposition of sanctions is mandatory where a party’s failure to respond to Requests for Admission necessitates the motion. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.

            Since neither an opposition nor a reply were filed, fees and costs are not allocated for review and preparation of those documents. Sanctions are payable to Plaintiff within 10 days.