Ying Wang v. The John Stuart Co.; HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County; Betty Ann Gardens Leasing Office; Joanna Flores

Plaintiff is to submit code compliant responses within 20 days of the filing and service of this order. The request of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County monetary sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a special motion for sanctions. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”

LINE 8 25CV477397 Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Nathaniel Motion of Plaintiff Farmers Insurance Exchange to Villareal Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Stories, Set One, And for Monetary Sanctions. The motion of Motion of Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange to Compel Plaintiff Nathaniel Villareal To Provide answers to Special Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Objections are waived. Plaintiff is to submit code compliant responses within 20 days of the filing and service of this order. The request of Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange for monetary sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a special motion for sanctions. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”

Calendar Line 6 Superior Court, State Of California County Of Santa Clara Department 1

161 North First Street, San Jose, Ca 95113 408.882.2330 Department21@scscourt.org http://www.scscourt.org (For Clerk's Use Only)

Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian is covering for Judge Eunice Lee on 30 June and on 02 July 2026

Case No.: 25CV469820 Ying Wang v. HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County; et al. Date: 30 June 2026 9:00 am Line Number: 06

----oooOooo---

Motion of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County to Compel Plaintiff Ying Wang To Provide Further Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.290(c).)

I. Statement Of Facts. In this motion, Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County seeks an order from this Court compelling Plaintiff Ying Wang to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1, set one, and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1185.00.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on or about 07 July 2025 against Defendants The John Stewart Company, Betty Ann Gardens Leasing Office, Joanna Flores, and HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County alleging multiple statutory and common law violations against HomeFirst and co-defendants The John Stewart Company, Betty Ann Gardens Leasing Office, and Joanna Flores. Plaintiff asserts causes of action sounding in negligence, discrimination, retaliation, constructive eviction, breach of statutory housing duties, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others.

This Defendant properly served the foregoing discovery. On or about 07 September 2025, Plaintiff provided responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admission, Set One. Defendant and was unsatisfied with her response to Form Interrogatory 17.1. According to the Declaration of Umid Bobajanov, appropriate “Meet & Confer” took place but the matter was still unresolved. This Defendant claims that the responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 are evasive and incomplete.

This motion was filed on 30 September 2025. The filing of this motion complies with the timing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.300(c). Plaintiff has not filed opposition to this motion. In response to a discovery motion filed by codefendant The John Stewart Company and Joanna Flores who compelled responses to special interrogatories, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order which was heard by Judge Lee on 25 June 2026.

California courts have taken a liberal approach to permissible discovery, which has led the courts to resolve any doubt in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

II. Discussion. A. Motion to Compel Further Responses. Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.300(a) states: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

Moving Party has made a prima facie case showing that it seeks further responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1. Without proper opposition, this Court cannot come to any other conclusion.

B. Monetary Sanctions. Defendant makes a request for monetary sanctions. The request is not code-compliant. Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states, in part: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”

A party filing a discovery motion cannot recover sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), 2031.320(b) and 2033.290(d) where no opposition was filed, because the responding party did not “. . . unsuccessfully make[] or oppose[]. . .” the motions. In fact, this Court often suspects that a clever responding party might deliberately choose not to file opposition for the above reason.

Since no opposition was filed, the correct citation of authority would have been California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) which states: “The 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.”

In the future, counsel would be advised to add the following language in the notice of motion and in the memorandum of points and authorities: "If you wish to oppose the relief requested in this motion, you must timely file a written reply in compliance with all Court rules. If you fail to do so, the court may treat your failure to respond as a waiver of your right to oppose this motion and may grant the relief requested pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a)."

/// III. Conclusion and Order.

The motion of Motion of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County to Compel Plaintiff Ying Wang To Provide Further Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to submit code compliant responses within 20 days of the filing and service of this order. The request of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County monetary sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a special motion for sanctions.

___________________________ ____________________________________________ DATED: HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County Of Santa Clara

---oooOooo---

Calendar Line 7

---oooOooo---