Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV01378, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01378    Hearing Date: March 27, 2023    Dept: L

1. Defendants Rosa Ruelas’ and Guadalupe Mendoza-Ramirez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Ruelas’ and Mendoza-Ramirez’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $360.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.

2. The hearing on Defendants Rosa Ruelas’ and Guadalupe Mendoza-Ramirez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is CONTINUED to ___________________.

Background   

Plaintiff Jose Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff and Defendants Rosa Ruelas (“Rosa”) and Guadalupe Mendoza-Ramirez (“Guadalupe”) are siblings. Plaintiff lived at the unspecified “subject property” with their mother, Sofia Mendoza (“Sofia”) and late father, Ignacio Mendoza (“Ignacio”). Plaintiff was led to believe that, because of a letter written and signed by Sofia, Ignacio, Rosa, Guadalupe, and Plaintiff’s sister Gloria Mendoza (“Gloria”), he would be allowed to live in the house on the subject property for the rest of his life and that the subject property would not be sold during that time. On or about September 30, 2019, Rosa visited the subject property, took Sofia away from same and developed a plan to sell the subject property.

On October 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Rosa, Guadalupe and Does 1-10 for:

1.      Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

2.      Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

A Case Management Conference is set for March 27, 2023.

1. Motion to Compel Re: Form Interrogatories

Legal Standard

A response to interrogatories is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.

(a).) “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, . . . [t]he

party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the

interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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).)

Discussion

Rosa and Guadalupe move the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses, without objections, to their Form Interrogatories, Set No. One. Rosa and Guadalupe additionally seek sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $960.00.

On December 30, 2022, Rosa and Guadalupe served the subject discovery. (Vega Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs. 1 and 2.) No responses have been received. (Notice, 2:5-6; Motion, 3:22-23).

The motion is granted. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Ruelas’ and Mendoza-Ramirez’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Sanctions

Rosa and Guadalupe seek sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $960.00 [calculated as follows: 3 hours preparing motion at $300.00/hour, plus 1 hour preparing reply, plus $60.00 filing fee (Note: This equals $1,260.00)].

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $360.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $300.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

2. Motion to Compel Re: Document Production

Legal Standard

A response to a request for production of documents is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or

sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, . . . [t]he party making the demand may

move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who

unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection,

copying, testing, or sampling, 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Rosa and Guadalupe move the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses, without objections, to their Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One. Rosa and Guadalupe additionally seek sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $960.00.

A review of the motion reflects that an incomplete copy has been filed; notably, at least pages 3 and 5 are missing, as is Vega’s declaration. Accordingly, the court will continue the hearing on the motion to April 17, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. The court instructs Vega to re-file and serve a full and complete copy of the motion and supporting declaration within 5 calendar days from the date of the instant hearing and noticed for the new hearing date.

Notice of Related Cases

Additionally, this case appears as if it may be related to the consolidated cases nos. 22PSCV00083, 22PSCV01319 and 22STCV32136. The court orders Plaintiffs to file a notice of related case in the consolidated cases no later than April 7, 2023, for that court to make a determination regarding relatedness.