Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21STCV35419, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35419    Hearing Date: August 2, 2022    Dept: A

21STCV35419 RANKIN v. PARAMOUNT VILLAS, ET AL.

Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SET ONE OF FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED, SET ONE OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION: REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

            The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on March 24, 2022, alleges that Plaintiff, Tammie Rankin, is a disabled tenant who resides at property owned and controlled by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges injuries after tripping and falling on the real property. The FAC alleges eleven causes of action including claims for negligence and premises liability, breach of warranty of habitability, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

            Defendants request an order compelling Plaintiff’s initial response to written discovery served on April 18, 2022. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ efforts to meet and confer. Additionally, Plaintiff did not respond to Requests for Admission served on April 18, 2022. Defendants ask that the court deem them admitted.

            Although Defendants timely served Plaintiff with these discovery motions, Plaintiff 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). Plaintiff has not responded to any of the written discovery. Declaration of Joshua Cohen, ¶ 4. Accordingly, an order granting the three motions to compel discovery responses is warranted, including imposition of monetary sanctions.

            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). Plaintiff failed to serve responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One. Declaration of Joshua A. Cohen, ¶3. Accordingly, the court deems the requests admitted against Plaintiff.

            Monetary sanctions totaling $305 for fees and costs incurred are imposed against Plaintiff for each motion. Imposition of sanctions is mandatory where a party’s failure to respond necessitates the motion. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.

            Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS all four motions. The Requests for Admission served on Plaintiff are deemed admitted. Plaintiff is 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). Imposition of sanctions is warranted for Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to authorized methods of discovery. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). With respect to the motion regarding requests for admission, imposition of sanctions is mandatory where a party’s failure to respond necessitates the motion. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.

            Therefore, the court imposes monetary sanctions of $401.00 for each motion against Plaintiff and counsel, Michell Iarusso, Esq., jointly and severally for fees and costs incurred to prepare the motions. Since neither an opposition nor a reply were filed, fees and costs are not allocated for that purpose. Sanctions are payable to Defendants within 10 days.