PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR FEES
July 6, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 26 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 8 26-UDL-00587 THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. LINDA CHRISTINA LUCERO MENDIETA
THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY MERCEDES A. GAVIN LINDA CHRISTINA LUCERO MENDIETA PRO/PER
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR FEES
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff The John Stewart Co.’s (“TJS”) Motion to Compel Defendant Linda Christina Lucero Mendieta (“Defendant”)’s Responses to Discovery, Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions, and Request for Sanctions is conditionally GRANTED, subject to its (ability to) compl(iance) with the immediate next paragraph.
As an initial matter, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.020, subdivision (c), 2031.020, subdivision (c) and 2033.020, subdivision (c) provide that, in an unlawful detainer action, a plaintiff may propound interrogatories, make a demand for inspection or make a request for admissions by a party at any time that is 10 days after service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party, whichever occurs first. While the timing of the discovery in the context of the filing of the case suggests that it is likely timely, in this case, plaintiff has not yet filed proof of service of the summons.
And, defendant answered on June 5, 2025 with the discovery at issue served by plaintiff just 4 days later. So for this motion to be granted, Plaintiff must establish that the discovery was timely by filing a proof of service of the summons/complaint that demonstrates the discovery was served at least 10 after the service of summons and emailing a courtesy copy to Department 11 (dept11@sanmateocourt.org) by 12 p.m. on July 6, 2027. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Motion will be denied without prejudice.
The remainder of this tentative assumes that Plaintiff can and will do so.
In an unlawful detainer proceeding, responses to interrogatories, inspection demands, and requests for admission must be served five days from service of the requests. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260 (b), § 2031.260 (b), § 2033.250 (b). If timely responses to interrogatories or inspection demands are not served, the responding party waives any objection to the interrogatories or demands and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. Id. § 2030.290 (a) & (b) and § 2031.300 (a) & (b).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
If timely responses to request for admission are not served, the responding party waives any objection to the requests and the propounding party may move for an order deeming the truth of the matters specified in the requests admitted. Id. § 2033.280 (a) & (b). A court must grant this latter order unless it finds that a proposed response to the requests that substantially complies with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.220 has been served. Id. § 2033.280 (c).
TJS presents evidence that it served its respective first sets of form interrogatories, inspection demands, and requests for admission on Defendant by express mail on June 9, 2026. Jun. 23, 2026 Declaration of Mercedes A. Gavin (“Gavin Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–5, exhs. 1–4. Defendant’s responses were therefore due no later than June 16, 2026. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013 (b) (service by express or overnight mail extends deadline by two court days). As of June 23, 2026, Defendant had not served any responses, and there is no indication any responses have been served since. Gavin Decl. ¶ 6.
July 6, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 27 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to provide responses without objections to the interrogatories and inspection demands served upon her by TJS on June 9, 2026, no later than five (5) days after service of written notice of entry of a formal order. In addition, the truth of the matters in TJS’s first set of requests for admissions, as set forth in attachment 1 to exhibit 3 of the supporting declaration, is hereby deemed admitted by Defendant.
TJS also requests the imposition of monetary sanctions against Defendant for her failure to respond to discovery. While TSJ’s memorandum of points and authorities only cites the statutes requiring monetary sanctions for an unsuccessful opposition to a motion to compel, failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is the epitome of a misuse of the discovery process supporting the imposition of monetary sanctions. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010 and § 2023.030 (a).
TJS presents evidence showing it incurred reasonable expenses of $585.00—in the form of $525.00 in attorney fees and $60.00 to bring the instant motion—as a result of Defendant’s misuse of discovery. Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to pay $585.00 in monetary sanctions to TJS no later than thirty (30) days after service of written notice of entry of the formal order.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.