Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV20220, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20220    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 45

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. ESPERANZA CRUZ, et al.

(1)   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AS TO DEFENDANT PETER GARCIA AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,800

(2)   motion TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE ADMITTED AS TO DEFENDANT PETER GARCIA AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,800

Date of Hearing:          March 25, 2025                       Trial Date:       July 7, 2025

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         23STCV20220

Moving Party:             (1)-(2) Plaintiff The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation

Responding Party:       (1)-(2) None  

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff The People of the State of California (“Plaintiff”), acting by and through the Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), alleges that the defendants unlawfully entered the premises located at 5514 Allan Street, Los Angeles, California 90032 and ousted Caltrans from the premises. The defendants have been in possession of the property since that time and have withheld possession from Caltrans.

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Esperanza Cruz, Camila Cruz (a minor by her mother Esperanza Cruz), Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and all others in possession, asserting causes of action for (1) ejectment, and (2) forcible detainer.

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff substituted Defendant Peter Garcia (“Garcia”) for the defendant sued fictitiously as Doe 1.

On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service of Summons, informing the Court that Garcia had been served through posting and mailing of the relevant documents.

On July 12, 2024, default was entered against Garcia.

On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant discovery motions.

As of March 20, 2025, no oppositions or replies have been filed.

[Tentative] RulingS

The Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One as to Defendant Peter Garcia and for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,800 is DENIED.

The Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One Admitted as to Defendant Peter Garcia and for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,800 is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

A.      Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the responding party shall serve responses to the discovery unless, on motion of the propounding party, the court has shortened the time for response, or, on motion of the responding party, the court has extended the time for response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.  (a).)

“If 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 ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd.  (a).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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, subd.  (c).)

B.      Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

“Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

If 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 … [unless the court, on motion, relieves that party from the waiver].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

In addition, “[t]he requesting 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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves for orders (1) compelling Defendant Garcia to serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) deeming the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set One, that Caltrans propounded on Garcia admitted. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in connection with the two motions. Plaintiff’s counsel attests following facts in support of the motions. On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff served the discovery on Defendant. (Declarations of Michelle Han (“Han Decl.”), ¶ 2.) Garcia’s responses were due on January 18, 2024. (Han Decl., ¶ 3.) To date, Garcia has failed to serve any responses to the discovery. (Han Decl., ¶ 3.) Caltrans has also received no communications from Garcia requesting an extension on his deadline to respond to the discovery requests. (Han Decl., ¶ 3.)

“Entry of a defendant’s default terminates that defendant's rights to participate in the litigation [citation], and the case ends when default judgment is entered [citation].” (Garcia v. Politis (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1479 [holding that a party is not authorized to seek attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 “after default judgment has been entered, because a case in which a defendant’s default has been taken necessarily has no adversarial quality and the defaulted defendant would have no right to participate in the motion”].)

Here, default was entered against Garcia on July 12, 2024, before Plaintiff filed the motions on August 2, 2024, and no motion to set aside that default has been granted or is pending. Plaintiff has not cited (and the Court has not found) any authority that would allow the Court to issue the orders Plaintiff is seeking against a defaulted defendant.

For those reasons, the motions are denied in their entirety.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One as to Defendant Peter Garcia and for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,800 is DENIED.

The Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One Admitted as to Defendant Peter Garcia and for Sanctions in the Amount of $1,800 is DENIED.