Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV02455, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV02455 Hearing Date: April 25, 2025 Dept: 40
24STCV02455 Ivan D. Rodriguez v. Evaristo
Rodriguez Gonzalez, et al.
Friday,
April 25, 2025
TENTATIVE ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Ivan Rodriguez rented the property located at 3280 Folsom Street, Los Angeles,
California 90063 to Defendants. On or around
December 28, 2023, Plaintiff listed the property for sale to which defendants
disagreed. On or around January 17, 2024, real estate agent Jesse Uribe
conducted a title search and discovered a grant deed recorded on December 29,
2023. The deed, identified as instrument number 20230919365 grants defendant a
50% interest in the property as joint tenants with plaintiff who claims he was
unaware of the forged deed until informed by Uribe on January 17, 2024.
On January
31, 2024, Plaintiff Ivan D. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Defendants Evaristo Rodriguez Gonzalez
(“Gonzalez”), Leneice White (“White”), and Does 1 through 100 (collectively,
“Defendants”) alleging causes of action for (1) quiet title, (2) cancellation
of instrument, (3) declaratory relief, (4) negligence, and (5) payment on bond.
On May
7, 2024, Defendant White filed an answer to the complaint.
On
March 27, 2025, Defendant White filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to
Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Sanctions (the “FROG Motion”), the
instant Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set
One, and for Sanctions (the “RPD Motion”), and Motion to Deem Responses to
Requests for Admission to Plaintiff as Admitted and for Sanctions (the “RFA
Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).
As of
April 22, 2025, no opposition brief has been filed. Any opposition was required
to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)
II.
ARGUMENTS
A.
Motions filed on March 27, 2025.
Defendant
White contends that Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Form
Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and RFAs, on or by the
statutory deadline. Pursuant to each of the Motions, Defendant White seeks the
imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A party
must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does
not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order
compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd.
(b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one
based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290,
subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to
interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days
before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290.) No meet and
confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the
discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc.
v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)
Any
party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling
documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored
information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the
action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to
timely respond to demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling “[t]he
party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is
directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege
or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd.
(a).) Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b) provides that “[t]he party making the
demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”
After service of requests for admission, a
party has 30 days to respond “in writing under oath and separately to each
RFA.” (St Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774.) When
a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission “[t]he party
to whom the request was directed waives any objection to the requests,
including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code
Civ. Proc, § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party can move for an order
that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in
the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall issue this order unless the
party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance
prior to the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party
or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for
admission necessitated [the] motion.” (Ibid.)
Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d) provides
that a misuse of the discovery process is failing to respond or to submit to an
authorized method of discovery. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(h) states that a
misuse of the discovery process includes making or opposing, unsuccessfully and
without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery.
A court may impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse
of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct under Code Civ.
Proc. § 2023.030(a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable
monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit
Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)
IV.
DISCUSSION
A.
Interrogatories,
Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission.
Here, Defendant White served Plaintiff’s
counsel by electronic service and U.S. Mail on January 7, 2025, with the Form
Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and RFAs. (RFA Motion, Rudin
Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1; FROG Motion, Rudin Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1; RPD Motion, Rudin
Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendant White has not received answers to the Form
Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, or RFAs. (RFA Motion,
Rudin Decl., ¶ 4; FROG Motion, Rudin Decl., ¶ 4; RPD Motion, Rudin Decl., ¶ 4.)
Thus, Defendant White is entitled to an
order deeming the RFAs admitted and compelling Plaintiff to provide responses
without objections to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents.
B.
Monetary
Sanctions.
Sanctions are mandatory against the party,
the person, or the attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to the
request necessitated the motion to deem request for admissions as admitted, the
motion to compel responses to the requests for production of documents, and the
motion to compel responses to interrogatories. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§
2030.290(c), 2033.280(c), 2031.300(c); see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule
3.1348(a) [the court can award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a
party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition was filed, the
opposition was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving
party after the motion was filed].)
“A request for a sanction shall, in the
notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the
sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of
motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities and
accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any
monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)
Here, Plaintiff failed to serve timely
responses to Defendant White’s RFAs, Form Interrogatories, Special
Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents by the statutory
deadline. Thus, sanctions are mandatory against Plaintiff. (See Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2033.280(c), 2031.300(c); see also Cal. Rules of Court,
Rule 3.1348(a).)
The Court finds Defendant White’s Notice
of Motion for each motion complies with Code of Civil Procedure section
2023.040.
As to the RPD Motion, Defendant White
requests monetary sanctions of $930.00 against Plaintiff based on the estimated
three hours of work related to such motion at the rate of $310.00 per hour. (RPD
Motion, Rudin Decl., ¶ 7.)
As to the RFA Motion, Defendant White
requests monetary sanctions of $930.00 against Plaintiff based on the estimated
three hours of work related to such motion at the rate of $310.00 per hour. (RFA
Motion, Rudin Decl., ¶ 7.)
Thus, Defendant White requests total
monetary sanctions of $2,480.00 as to the Motions. Further, Defendant White
does not request any filing fees as a component of monetary sanctions. (See Rudin
Decls., ¶ 7.)
Given the similarity of the Motions to
each other, the shared hearing date, the lack of Oppositions and Replies, and
the straightforward nature of the Motions, Defendant White’s request for
monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of
$620.00, reflecting 2.0 hours incurred at $310.00 per hour.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant Leneice
White’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Motion to
Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, and Motion to Deem
Requests for Admission to Plaintiff as Admitted are GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified,
complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to set one of
Defendant Leniece White’s form interrogatories and requests for production of
documents within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Leneice White’s
request to deem the matters in set one of the requests for admissions as
admitted.
Defendant Leniece White’s unopposed
requests for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff are GRANTED in the reduced
amount of $620.00. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay total monetary sanctions in the
amount of $620.00 to Defendant Leneice White within 30 days of the date of
notice of this order.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.