Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 22PSCV01700, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

1. Plaintiff Maria L. Torres, individually and as Trustee of The Jose Ascencion Torres and Maria L. Torres Revocable Trust Dated February 19, 2022’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), the court orders that the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff to Rodrigo and by Plaintiff to Maria be deemed admitted. Rodrigo and Maria are each ordered to pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $270.00, which are payable within 30 days of the notice of ruling. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $60.00 in filing fees at or before the time of the hearing.

2. Plaintiff Maria L. Torres, individually and as Trustee of The Jose Ascencion Torres and Maria L. Torres Revocable Trust Dated February 19, 2022’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Rodrigo and Maria are to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Rodrigo and Maria are each ordered to pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $270.00, which are payable within 30 days of the notice of ruling. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $60.00 in filing fees at or before the time of the hearing.

3. Plaintiff Maria L. Torres, individually and as Trustee of The Jose Ascencion Torres and Maria L. Torres Revocable Trust Dated February 19, 2022’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Rodrigo and Maria are to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Rodrigo and Maria are each ordered to pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $270.00, which are payable within 30 days of the notice of ruling. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $60.00 in filing fees at or before the time of the hearing.

4. Plaintiff Maria L. Torres, individually and as Trustee of The Jose Ascencion Torres and Maria L. Torres Revocable Trust Dated February 19, 2022’s Motion for Order Compelling Production of Documents is GRANTED. Rodrigo and Maria are to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Rodrigo and Maria are each ordered to pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $270.00, which are payable within 30 days of the notice of ruling. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $60.00 in filing fees at or before the time of the hearing.

Plaintiff Maria L. Torres, individually (“Maria”) and as Trustee of The Jose Ascension Torres and Maria L. Torres Revocable Trust Dated February 19, 2022 (“Torres Trust”) (together, “Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On/around May 31, 1991, Maria and her husband, Jose Torres (“Jose”), purchased the property located at 3441 Robinette Avenue, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 (“subject property”) with Rodrigo Luquin (“Rodrigo”) and Maria D. Luquin (“Maria D.”) as joint tenants. The subject property is a duplex. For financing purposes, title was changed several times throughout the years. In/around December 16, 2002, Maria, Rodrigo and Maria D. transferred title to Jose as his sole and separate property; they were added back on title on December 8, 2003. In 2004, the subject property was refinanced again and Maria and Jose were removed from title. On February 16, 2005, Maria D. was removed from title, leaving Rodrigo as the sole owner. Maria was added back to title on November 16, 2007. On July 1, 2015, a deed of trust for $492,000.00 under Rodrigo’s and Maria D.’s names was recorded against the subject property. On March 28, 2018, title was restored back to Maria, Jose, Rodrigo, as joint tenants. On July 2, 2021, Rodrigo and Maria D. transferred their 50% interest in the subject property to The Maria D. and Rodrigo Luquin Living Trust dated December 12, 2020 (“Luquin Trust”). On February 19, 2022, Maria and Jose transferred their 50% interest in the subject property to the Torres Trust. On March 24, 2022, Jose died.

On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Rodrigo and Maria D., individually and as Trustees of the Luquin Trust, and Does 1-20 for:

A response to requests for admission is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §

2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a

timely response, . . .[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any

documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. . .” (Code

Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party

to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the

motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with

“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 this motion.”

The court notes that Plaintiff’s motion improperly combines two separate motions into one. Plaintiff has only paid one filing fee and reserved a hearing for one motion. This is improper. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $60.00 in filing fees at or before the time of the hearing (i.e., $60.00 filing fee/motion, multiplied by 2, minus 1 filing fee already paid). Counsel for Plaintiff is admonished to adhere to court filing and reservation guidelines in any future filings and to file (and pay for) separate motions for each discovery vehicle at issue in the future. Failure to do so may result in the motions being placed off calendar, in the court’s discretion.

At the outset, the court notes that the Discovery Code does not provide for a “Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions;” rather, Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280, subsection (b) authorizes “an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted . . .” The instant motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280; accordingly, the court construes same as a “Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted.”

Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on April 10, 2023. (Velasco Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 6, Exh. D.) Velasco thereafter granted opposing counsel K. Christopher Ghahreman’s (“Ghahreman”) requests for an extension of time to provide responses, such that responses were due June 2, 2023. (Id., ¶¶ 8-10, Exhs. E and F.) On June 2, 2023, Ghahreman requested another extension, which Velasco declined to provide. (Id., ¶ 11, Exh. G.) On June 5, 2023, Ghahreman indicated in an email to Velasco that he would be mailing out the responses. (Id., ¶ 12, Exh. G.) Velasco requested Ghahreman email the responses. (Id.) Velasco did not receive any emailed responses on June 5, 2023. (Id., ¶ 13). On June 6, 2023, Velasco sent a letter to Ghahreman, requesting therein that responses be submitted no later than June 8, 2023. (Id., ¶ 14, Exh. I.) On June 7, 2023, Ghahreman requested additional time to June 15, 2023 to respond to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 15, Exh. H). On June 20, 2023, Velasco emailed Ghahreman, advising therein that she had yet to receive any responses and that a motion to compel would be filed if the responses were not provided by the end of the business day. (Id., ¶ 15, Exh. H.) Velasco has not received responses or heard any further from Ghahreman as of the motion filing date. (Id., ¶¶ 18 and 19.)

The motion is granted. It is unopposed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280, subdivision (b), the court orders that the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set No. One, propounded by Plaintiff to Rodrigo and by Plaintiff to Maria be deemed admitted.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Rodrigo and Maria D. in the amount of $1,972.50 [calculated as follows: 1.5 hours preparing motion, plus 0.5 hour reviewing opposition, plus 1 hour preparing reply, plus 1.5 hours attending hearing at $425.00/hour, plus $60.00 motion fee].

A response to interrogatories is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.

(a).) “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, . . . [t]he

party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff moves the court to compel Rodrigo and Maria D. to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Rodrigo and Maria D. in the amount of $1,972.50.

Again, the court notes that Plaintiff’s motion improperly combines two separate motions into one. Plaintiff has only paid one filing fee and reserved a hearing for one motion. This is improper. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $60.00 in filing fees at or before the time of the hearing (i.e., $60.00 filing fee/motion, multiplied by 2, minus 1 filing fee already paid). Counsel for Plaintiff is admonished to adhere to court filing and reservation guidelines in any future filings and to file (and pay for) separate motions for each discovery vehicle at issue in the future. Failure to do so may result in the motions being placed off calendar, in the court’s discretion.

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the instant motion is $440.00 (i.e., 1.2 hours at $350.00/hour, plus $120.00 filing fees). Rodrigo and Maria D. are each ordered to pay half of this amount (i.e., $270.00). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff moves the court to compel Rodrigo and Maria D. to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Rodrigo and Maria in the amount of $1,972.50.

The motion is granted. It is unopposed. Rodrigo and Maria D. are to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

A response to a request for production of documents is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or

sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, . . . [t]he party making the demand may

move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who

unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection,

copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with

substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Plaintiff moves the court to compel Rodrigo and Maria D. to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Rodrigo and Maria D. in the amount of $1,972.50.

The motion is granted. It is unopposed. Rodrigo and Maria D. are to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

[1] Motions #1 and #2 were filed (and mail-served) on June 27, 2023; Motion #1 was originally set for hearing on August 16, 2023. Motions #3 and #4 were filed (and mail-served) on June 28, 2023; Motion #4 was originally set for hearing on August 16, 2023. On July 24, 2023, a “Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order” was filed, wherein the August 16, 2023 hearing on Motion #1 was rescheduled to August 17, 2023; notice was given to the parties. On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed (and served via mail and email) a “Notice of Continuance of Motion to Compel Request for Admissions and Request for Productions of Documents,” advising therein that the hearing on Motions #1 and #4 had been rescheduled to August 17, 2023.

[2] The court notes that Plaintiff has erroneously attached two copies of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded to Maria D. only as Exhibit A; no copy of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded to Rodrigo appears to be attached. The court attributes this to a clerical error and, based upon the representation made under oath by Velasco that Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One were, in fact, propounded to Rodrigo on that date, will entertain the merits of the motion.

[3] The court notes that Plaintiff has erroneously attached two copies of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded to Maria D. only as Exhibit A; no copy of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded to Rodrigo appears to be attached. Again, the court attributes this to a clerical error and, based upon the representation made under oath by Velasco that Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One were, in fact, propounded to Rodrigo on that date, will entertain the merits of the motion.