EC-61043
BURBANK MALL ASSOCIATES, LLC v MY BID FAT GREEK KITCHEN
Motion for:
1. Order compelling the Cross-Defendant to serve responses to the Plaintiffs’ form interrogatories; order imposing monetary sanctions of $1,600.
2. Order deeming the Cross-Defendant to have admitted the Cross-Complainant’s requests for admissions; order imposing monetary sanctions of $1,600.

This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants breached a lease agreement by failing to pay rent due. The Defendant, Pasta Pomodoro, filed a Cross-Complaint to claim that Cross-Defendant, My Big Fat Greek Kitchen and Mike Farzeneh, had breached the lease agreement because Pasta Pomodoro had assigned the lease to the Cross-Defendants. 
Trial is set for November 3, 2014.

At this hearing, the Cross-Complainant, Pasta Pomodoro, seeks discovery orders regarding the form interrogatories and requests for admissions that it served on the Cross-Defendant Michael Farzaneh, on January 13, 2014. The Cross-Complainant’s attorney, Shirley Hayton, provides facts in her declarations to demonstrate that the Cross-Defendant failed to serve any responses to the discovery.

Under CCP section 2030.290, the Court may order a party to serve responses when the party has failed to serve any responses to interrogatories. In addition, under CCP section 2030.290, when a party fails to serve timely responses, the party waives all objections to the interrogatories. Since the Cross-Defendant has failed to serve any responses to the Cross-Complainant’s form interrogatories, the Court grants the motion and orders the Cross-Defendant to serve responses without objections.
In addition, under CCP section 2033.280, the Court may order that a party is deemed to have admitted requests for admissions when the party has failed to serve any responses. Since the Cross-Defendant has failed to serve any responses to the Cross-Complainant’s requests for admissions, the Court grants the motion and orders that the Cross-Defendant is deemed to have admitted the Cross-Complainant’s requests for admissions.

Finally, the Cross-Complainant requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions on the Cross-Defendant for the fees and costs that were incurred in filing the two motions. Under CCP sections 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280 the Court may impose a reasonable amount of monetary sanctions upon the Cross-Defendant for his failure to comply with discovery. The Cross-Complainant’s attorney, Shirley Hayton, provides facts in the declarations accompanying the motions to demonstrate that she expects to spend a total of 8 hours at $400 per hour on the two motions.
First, the Court adjusts the hourly rate down to $300 per hour, which is a reasonable rate to bill for standard discovery motions. Second, Ms. Hayton states that she expected to spend 2 hours per motion to appear. Since it will not take 4 hours to appear on these unopposed discovery motions, the Court reduces this to a total of 2 hours to appear for both motions. The Court then allocates the time to appear among the two motions, i.e., 1 hour per motion.
Accordingly, a more reasonable amount of time to spend on each motion is 3 hours based on the following: 2 hours to draft and 1 hour to appear. The recommended amount of monetary sanctions is $900 per motion (3 hours at $300 per hour).

Accordingly, 
The Court ORDERS the Cross-Defendant to serve responses to the Cross-Complainant’s form interrogatories within 10 days; Further the Court ORDERS monetary sanctions on the Cross-Defendant $900 payable within 30 days; 
The Court ORDERS that the Cross-Defendant is deemed to have admitted the Cross-Complainant’s requests for admissions; Further The Court ORDERS monetary sanctions on the Cross-Defendant for this motion of $900 payable within 30 days.