Case Number: BC693230 Hearing Date: October 01, 2018 Dept: 37

CASE NAME: Whitney v. Solorio, et al.

CASE NO.: BC693230

HEARING DATE: 10/1/18

DEPARTMENT: 37

CALENDAR NO.: 9

FILING DATE: 2/6/18

FSC/TRIAL DATE: 2/5/19 (FSC), 2/14/19 (trial)

NOTICE: OK

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories against Salvador Solorio;

(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories against Salvador Solorio;

(3) Motion to Deem Facts Admitted by Salvador Solorio;

(4) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories against Veronica Maria Solorio;

(5) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories against Veronica Maria Solorio;

(6) Motion to Deem Facts Admitted by Veronica Maria Solorio.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mary Whitney

OPPOSING PARTY: None
COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING

The court GRANTS the motions and ORDERS Defendants Salvador Solorio and Veronica Maria Solorio to provide substantive, verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s form and special interrogatories by October 22, 2018. The court further DEEMS the truth of the matters in Plaintiff’s requests for admissions to Defendants admitted. The court AWARDS Plaintiff $1,500 in monetary sanctions against the Solorios jointly and severally, as well as an additional $180 against Salvador Solorio individually and $180 against Veronica Solorio individually. All sanctions are imposed against the Solorios jointly and severally with their counsel E. Houston Touceda.

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This habitability case arises in connection to real property located at 5919 Weaver St., Los Angeles, CA 90042 (the “Property”). Plaintiff Mary Whitney (“Whitney”) alleges that Defendants Salvador Solorio and Veronica Maria Solorio (“Veronica Solorio”) (collectively the “Solorios”) have used a “back unit as an un-permitted residential rental dwelling (the “Subject Premises”). Plaintiff further alleges that a City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety official conducted an inspection of the Property and Subject Premises and issued Defendants a substandard order for the illegal construction. Plaintiff alleges that the cited condition has not been corrected.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of statutory duties imposed by the City of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (“LARSO”); (2) breach of common law warranty of habitability; (3) nuisance per se; (4) violation of Civil Code, § 1942.4; (5) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (6) negligence; (7) breach of written contract; (8) money had and received; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (10) violation of Business and Professions Code, § 17200 (the Unfair Competition Law, “UCL”).
DISCUSSION
I. Discovery Responses

In the event a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the party waives any objection to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The requesting party may move then 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….” (Id. § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Unless the court finds that the responding party has served, before the hearing date, a proposed response substantially complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, the court must deem the requests admitted and impose a monetary sanction on the party whose failure to respond necessitated this motion. (Id. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

A party that fails to timely respond to interrogatories waives any objection to the interrogatories or demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The requesting party may then move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The court must 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 a substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id. § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff presents declarations of her counsel Lawrence P. Adamsky (“Adamsky Declarations”) in support of her motions. Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Defendants on April 19, 2018 including special interrogatories (“SROGs”), form interrogatories (“FROGs”), and requests for admissions (“RFAs”). (Adamsky Decls. Exs. 1-2.) Defendants’ responses were thus due on or before May 24, 2018. Adamsky attests that he has not received responses from Defendants. (Adamsky Salvador Solorio SROG Decl. ¶ 5; Adamsky Salvador Solorio FROG Decl. ¶ 5; Adamsky Salvador Solorio RFA Decl. ¶ 6; Adamsky Veronica Solario SROG Decl. ¶ 5; Adamsky Veronica Solario FROG Decl. ¶ 5; Adamsky Veronica Solario RFA Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendants have not filed an opposition and have not demonstrated that they served responses to the subject discovery.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motions and ORDERS Defendants Salvador Solorio and Veronica Maria Solorio to provide substantive, verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s form and special interrogatories by October 22, 2018. The court further DEEMS the truth of the matters in Plaintiff’s requests for admissions to Defendants admitted.
II. Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff additionally requests monetary sanctions against Defendants for their failure to timely respond to the propounded discovery. Defendants have not filed opposition briefs or demonstrated service of responses, and the court thus finds that monetary sanctions are warranted. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Adamsky attests to an hourly billing rate of $375 and to spending 2.5 hours in connection with each of the FROGs motions, 3 hours in connection with each of the SROGs motions, and 3 hours in connection with each of the RFAs motions. (Adamsky Salvador Solorio SROG Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; Adamsky Salvador Solorio FROG Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; Adamsky Salvador Solorio RFA Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; Adamsky Veronica Solario SROG Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; Adamsky Veronica Solario FROG Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; Adamsky Veronica Solario RFA Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff’s counsel further anticipates incurring an additional hour to attend the hearing on the motions. (Adamsky Salvador Solorio SROG Decl. ¶ 10; Adamsky Salvador Solorio FROG Decl. ¶ 10; Adamsky Salvador Solorio RFA Decl. ¶ 10; Adamsky Veronica Solario SROG Decl. ¶ 10; Adamsky Veronica Solario FROG Decl. ¶ 10; Adamsky Veronica Solario RFA Decl. ¶ 10.)

Given the straightforward and duplicative nature of the motions, the court finds it appropriate to award Plaintiff monetary sanctions in her favor to compensate her for 4 hours of Adamsky’s time in connection with the subject motions and the hearing, as well as $60 in connection with each motion. The court therefore AWARDS Plaintiff $1,500 in monetary sanctions against the Solorios jointly and severally, as well as an additional $180 against Salvador Solorio individually and $180 against Veronica Solorio individually. All sanctions are imposed against the Solorios jointly and severally with their counsel E. Houston Touceda.