Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00492, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00492    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 3-1-23

Case #22CHCV00492

Trial Date: Not Set

DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY:    Plaintiff, Basilio Haro

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Lupe Haro

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On July 6, 2022, and July 12, 2022, Plaintiff Basilio Haro filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Ejectment and Trespass against Lupe Haro. Plaintiff alleges Defendant entered Plaintiffs home at 13283 N. Herrick Ave., Sylmar, and refuses to leave.

RULING: Denied/Moot.

Plaintiff, Basilio Haro moves to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) served on Defendant Lupe Haro. Plaintiff represents service of Defendant on August 29, 2022. [Declaration of Bret Lewis, ¶ 3, Ex. A.] According to Plaintiff, at the time of the filing of the motion, no responses were received. [Id., ¶ 6.]

Defendant in a five court/seven calendar day late opposition states responses were provided without proof of any responses. The court accepts the representation of defense counsel barring any denial from Plaintiff’s counsel.

"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.)

The motion is therefore denied as moot.

The court imposes sanctions when responses are provided after the filing of the motion. Sanctions in the amount of $250 against defendant Lupe Haro and counsel of record. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Payable within 30 days.

Motions to Compel set for March 6 and 7, 2023, respectively.

Plaintiff to provide notice.