Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00618, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00618    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                    March 5, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                      23TRCV00618

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                           Laura Einsetler; Frank Einsetler v. Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association, et al.   

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                (1) Plaintiff, Laura and Frank Einsetler’s Motion to Compel Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       (1) Defendant, Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association (No Opposition)

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       April 7, 2025

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Defendant, Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association to respond to Form Interrogatories

(2)  Motion to Compel Defendant, Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association to respond to Special Interrogatories

                                                (3) Motion to Compel Defendant, Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association to respond to Requests for Production of Documents

                                                (4) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted

                                                (5) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                     (1) Motion to Compel Defendant, Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association to respond to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED

(2)  Motion to Compel Defendant, Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association to respond to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED

                                                (3) Motion to Compel Defendant, Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association to respond to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED

                                                (4) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted is GRANTED in part as discussed below and the hearing continued to April 8, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. pending timely receipt of the Court-ordered verified written admissions, denials, or statements of inability to do either

                                                (5) The Requests for Monetary Sanctions for each motion is CONTINUED to April 8 as well, pending supplemental evidence bearing on the claimed $400 hourly rate

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On March 2, 2023, Plaintiffs, Laura Einsetler and Frank Einsetler (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Villa Capri Townhomes Homeowners Association (“Defendant”), and DOES 1 through 10. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Governing Documents/Enforcement of Equitable Servitudes; (2) Negligence; (3) Nuisance; (4) Trespass; (5) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (6) Declaratory Relief.  These claims arise out of a leaking water pipe or pipes that allegedly caused damage to Plaintiffs’ unit in their residential premises for which Plaintiffs allege the HOA was responsible.

Per the moving papers, on September 26, 2023, Plaintiffs, Laura and Frank Einsetler served Defendant, Villa Capri Townhomes Association with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted. Plaintiffs note that on October 30, 2023, Defendant’s responses were due. Plaintiffs assert that no extensions were requested nor received.

As such, Plaintiffs seek a Motion to Compel initial responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiffs also seek an order to deem Requests for Admission as Admitted.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed these Motions to Compel and Requests to Deem Request for Admission Admitted. To date, no opposition has been filed and there is no indication that even tardy responses were provided by Plaintiff or its counsel.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set one

Legal Standard

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); Code Civ. Proc., 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

Further, where there has been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required. 

Discussion

            Here, Plaintiff request this Court order Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiffs’ moving papers assert that Defendant has failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and request this Court for an order compelling Defendant to respond to the propounded discovery requests, without objections, and with verified responses. The Court grants this request and requires Defendant to serve verified responses to the propounded discovery, without objections by March 26, 2024.   

B.    Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted

Legal Standard

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”  Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).)    

Discussion

            Here, as noted above, Defendant completely failed to respond to this propounded discovery as well. For the same reasons as the interrogatories and requests for production of documents, this Court GRANTS this motion in part and requires Defendant to serve verified responses to the Requests for Admission by March 26, 2024, with the more devastating consequence of deeming the RFAs admitted to be imposed if no verified admissions, denials, or statements of inability to admit or deny are timely served by that date.  The Court will continue the hearing on the RFA motion to a date two weeks past the March 26 deadline so Plaintiffs’ counsel can submit a supplemental declaration advising the Court if the Court-ordered RFA responses are or are not timely served, in the same declaration as counsel addresses the hourly rate issue noted below. 

C.    Sanctions

Here, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants for the four (4) of these motions in the amount of in the amount of $2,880 per motion to compel initial responses and $2,800 for the Motion to Deem RFAs as Admitted.  Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.¿¿(CCP. §§ 2030.290(c),¿2030.300(d),¿2031.300(c),¿and 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿¿(Id.) 

            Plaintiff’s sanction amount is based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration noting that for the motion to compel initial responses, he spent 1.8 hours preparing the motions at $400/hour, expects to spend 2.4 hours analyzing an opposition and preparing a reply brief and another 3 hours preparing for and attending the hearing on this motion. For the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as admitted, counsel states he spent 1.6 hours preparing the motion at $400/hour, expects another 2.4 hours analyzing an opposition and preparing a reply brief and another 3 hours preparing and attending the motion.

            This Court notes that no opposition or reply briefs were filed on either of the four motions, and the 3 hours allocated to each of the motions for time spent for preparing and attending the hearing are duplicative and excessive. As such, if this Court were to award sanctions at this time, it would award them in a significantly lower amount than as requested. Further, the declarations supporting the sanctions states in a conclusory way that $400 per hour is reasonable for an attorney of the same years of practice and experience, but the declarations do not say what counsel’s experience or unspecified years of practice are in doing.  The Court thus will continue the hearing on the sanctions issue pending receipt of additional evidence bearing on the claimed hourly rate. 

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.