Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24PDUD02239, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PDUD02239    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC    

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Roberta F. Morrissey

(1)   Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and for Sanctions

(2)   Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions

(3)   Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

The court considered the moving, consolidated opposition, and consolidated reply papers filed in connection with each motion.[1]

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission served on defendant Roberta F. Morrissey (“Defendant”), and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the court shall, upon motion by the propounding party, order that the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted unless the court finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served substantially compliant responses before the hearing on the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b), (c).)¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

Plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that it served on Defendant its Requests for Admission, Set One, on July 24, 2024 by mail and email.  (Chandra Decl., Ex. 1, p. 3 [proof of service].)  Defendant did not serve responses within the time required.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (b) [“in an unlawful detainer action . . . the party to whom the request is directed shall have at least five days from the date of service to respond . . . .”].)  

Defendant has filed an opposition to this motion, contending that Plaintiff violated Department 53’s expectation that the parties meet and confer to make a reasonable and good faith effort to resolve each discovery issue in dispute, and asserting that Defendant has multiple challenges that make responding to discovery difficult.  (Consolidated Opp., pp. 4:10-5:5; Opdahl-Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  But Defendant (1) did not request, by ex parte application or noticed motion, that the court extend the time to respond to this discovery, or (2) present evidence showing that Defendant has, before the hearing on this motion, served a proposed response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.250, subd. (b) [party has five days to respond “unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response”], 2033.280, subd. (c) [the court shall deem admissions admitted unless the responding party has served proposed responses in substantial compliance with section 2033.220].)

The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b), (c).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  The court finds that $555 ((1 hour at the hourly rate of $495) + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Chandra Decl., ¶¶ 8-11.)

The court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $555.

If a party to whom a demand for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2031.300, subd. (b).)¿¿ 

Plaintiff served Defendant with its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on July 24, 2024 by mail and email.  (Chandra Decl., Ex. 1, p. 4 [proof of service].)  Defendant did not serve timely responses and had not served responses as of the date that Plaintiff filed this motion.  (Chandra Decl., ¶¶ 5, 10; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (b) [“in an unlawful detainer action . . . , the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed shall have at leas five days from the date of service of the demand to respond”].)  Defendant has not presented argument or evidence, in her opposition papers, showing that she timely served responses to this discovery or has since served responses.

The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to serve responses and produce responsive documents to its Requests for Production of Documents.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)  The court finds that $555 ((1 hour at the hourly rate of $495) + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Chandra Decl., ¶¶ 12-13.)

The court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff’s (i) Form Interrogatories, Set One (Unlawful Detainer), (ii) Form Interrogatories, Set Two (General), and (iii) Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $555.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)¿ 

Plaintiff served Defendant with Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, by mail and email on July 24, 2024.  (Chandra Decl., Ex. 4 [proof of service of discovery].)  Defendant did not serve timely responses and had not served responses as of the date that Plaintiff filed this motion.  (Chandra Decl., ¶¶ 5, 10; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (b) [“in an unlawful detainer action . . . , the party to whom interrogatories are propounded shall have five days from the date of service to respond . . . .”].)  Defendant has not presented argument or evidence, in her opposition papers, showing that she timely served responses to this discovery or has since served responses.

The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to serve responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One (Unlawful Detainer), Form Interrogatories, Set Two (General), and Special Interrogatories, Set One.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)  The court finds that $555 ((1 hour at the hourly rate of $495) + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Chandra Decl., ¶¶ 12-14.)  

The court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted and for sanctions.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, the court orders that the truth of the matters specified in plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC’s Requests for Admission, set One, served on defendant Roberta F. Morrissey, is deemed admitted.

            The court grants plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC’s motion to compel production of documents and for monetary sanctions.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, the court orders defendant Roberta F. Morrissey (1) to serve on plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC full and complete verified responses, without objections, to plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, which comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.250, and (2) to produce to plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC all documents and things in defendant Roberta F. Morrissey’s possession, custody, or control which are responsive to those requests, within five days of the date of service of this order.

            The court grants plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories and for monetary sanctions.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, the court orders defendant Roberta F. Morrissey to serve full and complete verified answers, without objections, and that comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.220-2030.250, within five days of the date of service of this order, to plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC’s (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One (Unlawful Detainer), (2) Form Interrogatories, Set Two (General), and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One.

The court orders defendant Roberta F. Morrissey to pay monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,665 to plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

            The court orders plaintiff Redwood Holdings, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 31, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court