Case Number: VC065893 Hearing Date: October 16, 2018 Dept: SEC

PEREZ v. NAVAS

CASE NO.: VC065893

HEARING: 10/16/18

JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants YURI NAVAS, OLGA M. KERR, PEDRO GARCIA, and PHOENIX LANDING, LLC’s unopposed motion to deem matters in requests for admissions propounded on Plaintiff MIGUEL PEREZ admitted is GRANTED. CCP § 2033.280.

Defendants YURI NAVAS, OLGA M. KERR, PEDRO GARCIA, and PHOENIX LANDING, LLC’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff MIGUEL PEREZ’s responses to special interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP § 2030.290.

Defendants YURI NAVAS, OLGA M. KERR, PEDRO GARCIA, and PHOENIX LANDING, LLC’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff MIGUEL PEREZ’s responses to form interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. CCP § 2030.290.

Defendants YURI NAVAS, OLGA M. KERR, PEDRO GARCIA, and PHOENIX LANDING, LLC’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff MIGUEL PEREZ’s responses and production to request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED. CCP § 2031.300.

Requests for Admission

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests…. The Court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280.) No prior attempt to resolve the matter informally is required.

Here, Request for Admission, set one, was served on March 8, 2018 and no response has been received to date. (West Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. A-B.) Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Form Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Form Interrogatories, set one, was served on March 8, 2018 and no response has been received to date. (West Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. A-B.) Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatories

The motion is GRANTED. Special Interrogatories, set one, was served on March 8, 2018 and no response has been received to date. (West Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. A-B.)

Request for Production

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Request for Production, set one, was served on March 8, 2018 and no response has been received to date. (West Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. A-B.) The motion is GRANTED.

Sanctions

CRC, Rule 3.1348, subdivision (a), provides that “[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.”

Sanctions are GRANTED. Plaintiff MIGUEL PEREZ and his counsel of record are ORDERED to pay Defendants YURI NAVAS, OLGA M. KERR, PEDRO GARCIA, and PHOENIX LANDING, LLC and their counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $1,800 ($300/hr. x 6 hrs.) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.