Case Number: BC545697 Hearing Date: February 05, 2018 Dept: 47

David Penilla, et al. v. Westmont Corporation d/b/a Wildwood Mobile Home Country Club, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Westmont Corporation d/b/a Wildwood Mobile Home Country Club, Mark Rutherford, Jo Davenport, Gary Davenport

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs David Penilla, et al.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs are residents of a mobile home park. Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants have failed to maintain the common areas. Plaintiffs also allege a series of unrelated acts of rudeness and intimidation by various Defendants as well as refusal to approve buyers of Plaintiffs’ mobile homes.

Defendants Westmont Corporation d/b/a Wildwood Mobile Home Country Club, Mark Rutherford, Jo Davenport, Gary Davenport and Jose Hernandez move to compel initial responses to special interrogatories, set one, from Plaintiffs Lupe Anaya, Sal Flores, Bertha Gonzalez, Miguel Gonzalez, Miguel Hernandez, Fernando Monsalvo, Rosa Ortega, Angelina Rose Ortiz, and Manuel Salazar, and for the imposition of sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Westmont Corporation d/b/a Wildwood Mobile Home Country Club, Mark Rutherford, Jo Davenport, Gary Davenport and Jose Hernandez’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, from these Plaintiffs is GRANTED, to the extent that the Plaintiffs have not dismissed their claims (Sal Flores and Manuel Salazar) or are no longer alive (Miguel Hernandez). Verified, code compliant responses without objection are due from Plaintiffs Lupe Anaya, Bertha Gonzalez, Miguel Gonzalez, Fernando Monsalvo, Rosa Ortega, and Angelina Rose Ortiz within 10 days of this Order.

Defendants’ request for sanctions, which was noticed against Plaintiffs’ counsel, Haney & Young LLP only, is DENIED. In light of the circumstances that the client Plaintiffs against whom this motion is brought have either dismissed their claims, died, or cannot be located, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel would be unjust. CCP § 2030.290(c).

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Compel Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set One

Defendants Westmont Corporation d/b/a Wildwood Mobile Home Country Club, Mark Rutherford, Jo Davenport, Gary Davenport and Jose Hernandez move to compel initial responses to special interrogatories, set one, from Plaintiffs Lupe Anaya, Sal Flores, Bertha Gonzalez, Miguel Gonzalez, Miguel Hernandez, Fernando Monsalvo, Rosa Ortega, Angelina Rose Ortiz, and Manuel Salazar, and for the imposition of sanctions.

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under CCP § 2030.290(b) a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. CCP § 2030.290(a). For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown 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. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06. Here, as of the date of the filing of the motions, Defendants had not received any responses to special interrogatories from Plaintiffs Lupe Anaya, Sal Flores, Bertha Gonzalez, Miguel Gonzalez, Miguel Hernandez, Fernando Monsalvo, Rosa Ortega, Angelina Rose Ortiz, and Manuel Salazar. See Declaration of Margaret R. Wright, ¶ 13. Therefore, the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, from these Plaintiffs is GRANTED, to the extent that the Plaintiffs have not dismissed their claims (Sal Flores and Manuel Salazar) or are no longer alive (Miguel Hernandez). Verified, code compliant responses without objection are due from Plaintiffs Lupe Anaya, Bertha Gonzalez, Miguel Gonzalez, Fernando Monsalvo, Rosa Ortega, and Angelina Rose Ortiz within 10 days of this Order.

The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court finds that the party subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. CCP § 2030.290(c).

Defendants’ request for sanctions, which was noticed against Plaintiffs’ counsel, Haney & Young LLP only, is DENIED. In light of the circumstances that the client Plaintiffs against whom this motion is brought have either dismissed their claims, died, or cannot be located, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel would be unjust.

Defendants to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2018 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court