Ruby v. Farano

Plaintiffs submitted a separate statement that does not set forth each interrogatory at issue, nor did they submit a concise outline of each discovery request and response in dispute. Instead, they merely state that all 300 interrogatories are at issue, and they attach some, but not all, of Defendant’s discovery responses. (Exhibit B to Ruby Declaration [attaching select responses to Special Interrogatories].)

As in Mills, Plaintiffs do not comply with the separate statement requirement by attaching the discovery requests and responses to their Motion, as “ ‘[t]he separate statement shall be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material shall not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference.’ [Citation.]” (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

While Plaintiffs are permitted to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute (Code Civ. Proc., §

2030.300, subd. (b)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(2); see In Marriage of Moore (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1275, 1296-1297 [moving party not required to obtain prior court permission to submit a concise outline in support of motion]), Plaintiffs’ “Separate Statement in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)” can hardly be described as complying with the separate statement requirement, or as a “concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.”

As the moving party, it was Plaintiffs’ duty to provide the Court with a compliant separate statement so that the Court could understand each discovery request, all the responses that are at issue, and the factual and legal reasons that warrant further responses. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with rule 3.1345 warrants denial of their Motion.

Third, motions to compel further responses require that Plaintiffs make a good faith effort at informal resolution prior to filing the motion. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)

In turn, section 2016.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that a “meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a), italics added.)

Plaintiffs only attempted to meet-and-confer with Defendant via written correspondence. (Exhibit C to Ruby Declaration; Exhibit C to Opposition.) Even when Defendant advised Plaintiffs that the meet-andconfer requirement required a telephonic or in-person discussion, Plaintiffs refused.

Further, Plaintiffs’ meet-and-confer efforts do not evince “ ‘a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.’ ” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1293.) “ ‘[T]he law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1294.)

This is because Plaintiffs’ sole meet-and-confer letter demanded further responses within 10 days, and they made no further effort to discuss why they were entitled to further responses as to 300 special interrogatories.

Further, in determining whether Plaintiffs made an adequate effort at informal resolution, the Court may also consider “[t]he time available before the motion filing deadline” to determine “whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appeared likely to bear fruit ....” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432.)

The discovery responses were mail-served on January 5, 2026, meaning Plaintiffs’ deadline to file the subject Motion was February 24, 2026, or

45 days after service, plus five additional days to account for mail service.

Rather than make a serious effort at informal resolution, Plaintiffs sent two letters, dated January 13 and 15, which merely demanded further responses within 10 days (Exhibits A and C to Ruby Declaration). They then filed the subject Motion on January 23, 2026, even though they had about a month to engage in a good faith effort at resolving this dispute.

The foregoing shows that, had Plaintiffs complied with their meet-and- confer obligations, this Motion may have been avoided.

Finally, while the Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs are self- represented, such that they do not have the benefit of legal counsel. However, the law is clear that self-represented litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. They are not afforded exceptionally lenient treatment, and they are held to the same restrictive rules as an attorney. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Association v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262.)

For the reasons discussed, supra, Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied.

Defendant to give notice.

4 Dickson v. Barton Plaintiff Corey Dickson’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED.

Authority

The Court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).) The Court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).) Additionally, any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.)

In relevant part, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 provides that:

(a) Contents of a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

(b) Supporting declaration

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(1) The effect of the amendment;

(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

California courts generally allow great liberality, at all stages of the proceeding, in permitting the amendment of pleadings in order to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.)

Plaintiff submitted a declaration declaring as follows: The proposed First Amended Complaint corrects the identity of the true landlord entity, adds indispensable parties, clarifies agency relationships, and asserts additional claims and factual allegations based on newly discovered documentary evidence. (Decl. of Dickson, ¶ 2).

Since the filing of the original complaint, Plaintiff obtained additional documents and information that clarify the roles of Defendants and reveal new facts, including, for example, emails from Defendants showing their participation in billing practices CAM charges, and a fully executed commercial lease. (Decl. of Dickson, ¶¶ 2-12). The documentary evidence was not reasonably available to him at the time of filing the original complaint. (Decl. of Dickson, ¶ 5).

Plaintiff attached a copy of the proposed first amended complaint to the initial motion filed on 9/16/25, however, there is no caption page. (See ROA 43). Defendants did not oppose the motion and did not contend that they would be prejudiced by leave to amend.

The court finds that Plaintiff substantially complied with Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1324.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion, and ORDERS Plaintiff to separately file the first amended complaint that was attached to the motion (ROA 43), but with a compliant caption page. Plaintiff shall file this first amended complaint within 10 days.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

17