Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 23STCV16620, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCV16620, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 23STCV16620 Hearing Date: September 25, 2024 Dept: 34

McCloud, et al. v. P.S. Funding, Inc. et al. (23STCV16620)

Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel initial responses to discovery are GRANTED in their entirety as to both plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Adelina McCloud is ordered to pay sanctions of $910.00 to Defendant and/or her counsel within sixty (60) days.

Plaintiff Ellina Kelly is ordered to pay sanctions of $910.00 to Defendant and/or her counsel within sixty (60) days.

Background

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiffs Adelina McCloud (“McCloud”) and Ellina Kelly (“Kelly”) (“Plaintiffs”) filed their pro per complaint against eleven (11) named defendants, including moving defendant Denise Hayes Spears, and all persons unknown claiming title to the property located at 232 West 70th Street in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, fraud, and conversion.

On September 25, 2023, moving defendant Spears (“Defendant”) filed her answer.

On August 19, 2024, Defendant filed eight (8) discovery motions, four directed to McCloud and four directed to Kelly. Defendant seeks to compel initial responses to her form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents directed to each plaintiff, and for an order deeming admitted the matters referred to in Defendant’s requests for admission.

Neither McCloud nor Kelly filed a reply. Defendant filed Notices of Non-Opposition as to all eight motions on September 18, 2024.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010. . . . [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)-(b).)

Similarly, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f 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 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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010. . . . [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300(a)-(b).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…[t]he party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]” (Id., § 2033.280(a).) Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding 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, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Id., § 2033.280 (b).) The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “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 Section 2033.220.” (Id., § 2033.280(c).)

All further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Discussion

Defendant served both plaintiffs by U.S. Mail on August 19, 2024 for a hearing on September 25, 2024. (See 08-19-2024 POSs [x8].) The deadline for service via U.S. Mail was August 29, 2024. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005(b) [sixteen court plus five calendar days].) Service was proper and timely.

Given that neither plaintiff filed an opposition, it is undisputed that Defendant propounded the discovery in question on May 15, 2024, and that by June 26, 2024, more than thirty days afterward, neither plaintiff had responded to any set. (08-19-2024 Benbow Decls. [x8], ¶¶ 2-3 and Exh. 1, p. 7 [discovery POSs].)

Defendant is entitled to orders compelling responses to her interrogatories and requests for production and deeming admitted the matters referred to in her requests for admission.

Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under [section 2023.010 et seq.] against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel [initial responses] ... 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(c) [interrogatories], 2031.300(c) [requests for production]; 2033.280(c) [requests for admission].)

Neither plaintiff filed an opposition, so neither has shown substantial justification or other injustice. Defendant is entitled to sanctions.

Defendant’s counsel charges a reasonable hourly rate of $335 hourly. She estimates 0.5 hours spent drafting each motion and 0.5 hours preparing each reply. (Benbow Decls [x8], ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs filed no opposition, so no reply was necessary. The Court awards 0.5 for each motion at a $335 hourly rate.

Defendant also incurred filing fees of $60.00 in connection with each motion.

The Court awards 0.5 hours in fees for each motion at a rate of $335 hourly. This amounts to $670.00 imposed against McCloud and $670.00 imposed against Kelly. The Court also awards $60.00 in filing fees for each motion, for a total of $240.00 for each plaintiff.

The Court imposes sanctions on each plaintiff in the total amount of $910.00, payable to Defendant and/or her counsel within sixty (60) days of this order.