Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00146, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00146    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 5-4-23

Case #22CHCV00146

Trial Date: 8-28-23 c/f 5-1-23

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, LGR Properties, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Michelle Terrell, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Michelle Terrell alleges a home purchased on September 30, 2021, from Defendants contained numerous construction defects. On March 3, and March 16, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Violation of Building Standards, Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of Contract, and Breach of Express Warranty. Defendant LGR Properties, LLC and Ronald Kelly answered the first amended complaint on July 28, 2022.

RULING: Denied/Moot.

Defendant LGR Properties, LLC moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) served on Plaintiff Michelle Terrell.

Defendant represents service of Plaintiff on December 23, 2022. [Declarations of Gabriel Gevorkian, ¶ 4, Ex. A.] According to Defendant, at the time of the filing of the motion, no responses were received. [Id., ¶ 7.]

Plaintiff in a three (3) court day, five (5) calendar day late opposition denies any agreement to receive service via e-mail, thereby challenging the validity of the motion itself. Plaintiff also represents that responses were served notwithstanding the disputed electronic service. Plaintiff additionally requests the court refrain from imposing sanctions.

"Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300."

(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

Electronic service is a valid means of service for a party appearing in the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6.) Regardless, Plaintiff served responses. Because responses were served, the court declares the motion moot and denies the motion. The court otherwise declines to consider the validity of the responses and objections for purposes of the motion.

Because service was valid, and Plaintiff only served responses after the filing of the motion, court policy allows for the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions in the amount of $250 against plaintiff Michelle Terrell. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Payable within 30 days.

Trial remains set for August 28, 2023.

Defendant to provide notice.