Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV05965, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05965    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 45

Angie Correa v. RST & Associates, et al.

Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $842.40

Date of Hearing:         02/19/2025                              Trial Date:       02/23/2026

Department:                45                                            Case No.:        24STCV05965           

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Angie Correa

Responding Party:      Defendant RST & Associates

BACKGROUND

Factual and Procedural Background -

On March 11, 2024 Angie Correa (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against RST & Associates (RST) and Betty Darling (Darling, collectively Defendants), alleging various claims arising out of their tenancy, including alleged breach of the lease agreement, defective conditions of the Premises, and habitability issues.

            The motion now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $842.40 against RST.             

Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED as moot. However, the request for sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions will be imposed against RST & Associates and their counsel in the amount of $842.40. The monetary sanctions are due to Plaintiff within 10 days of this order.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (b), (c).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2030.290, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

            If a motion to compel responses to interrogatories is filed, the Court may impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

ANALYSIS

             On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff propounded RST with Form Interrogatories, Set 1. The deadline to provide responses was July 2, 2024, however, no responses were served. (Declaration of Joshua Greer, ¶¶4-5.) Plaintiff’s counsel inquired about the unanswered discovery and granted additional time – until August 15, 2024 – for responses to be served. Again, no responses came. (Id. at ¶6.)

            Upon opposition, RST’s puts forth two arguments. First, RST contends verified responses have been serve and therefore the instant Motion is now moot, citing to Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.  (“Sinaiko”.) Second, RST notes that Defense counsel was displaced during the recent 2025 California wildfires that caused widespread damage and evacuations in the Greater Los Angeles area.

With regard to the first point of the verified responses now having been served, even if discovery responses have been served the Court can still award sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.) With regard to the displacement of defense counsel caused by the recent wildfires, the Court empathizes with defense counsel’s difficult situation. However, the initial discovery request for this Motion was propounded in May of 2024. No responses came by the July 2, 2024 deadline. Plaintiff’s counsel then granted Defense counsel an extension until August 15, 2024. Still no responses were provided by that deadline, nor at any time during the remainder of the year. Therefore, although the Motion is denied as moot, sanctions are warranted.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations.

·         Counsel’s hourly rate is $468

·         Counsel expended 1.3 hours drafting the instant Motion

·         Counsel anticipated 0.5 hours for a reply and the hearing appearance

·         The total monetary sanctions being requested is therefore $842.40

Although no reply was filed, the Court will still grant the 0.5 hours of time expenditure to Plaintiff’s counsel to attend the hearing.

CONCLUSION

            Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED as moot. However, the request for sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions will be imposed against RST & Associates and their counsel in the amount of $842.40. The monetary sanctions are payable to Plaintiff within 30 days of this order.