Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories from Davis; Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to request to inspect writings from JDM
TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR July 14, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.
You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).
If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.
If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.
You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE
RULING.
Cal26 Property v. Davis
Before the Court are the following discovery motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses
to form interrogatories from Davis; and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to request to inspect
writings from JDM. The respective Defendants oppose. Plaintiff replies.
Analysis
The discovery at issue was served on November 18, 2025. (Gentino Decls. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff
provided five extensions, the last one being to March 8, 2026. To date, no responses have been
served. (Id. ¶ 2.)
The opposition basically is of defense counsel requesting that sanctions not be imposed against
him and arguing that the amount sought is not reasonable. Defendants assert that the notice of motion only
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?”
seeks sanctions against defendant and does not seek sanctions against defense counsel. Defense counsel
states that he is having client communication and other problems with Defendants. He has filed motions to
be relieved as counsel, which are set for July 14, 2026. (Murphy Decls. ¶ 1.)
In the opposition to the request to inspect motion, defense counsel states that it is his
understanding that JDM is under suspension with the Franchise Tax Board. (Murphy Inspect Decl. ¶ 4.)
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $850 is not demonstrated to be
reasonable for this county. They also contend that the amount sought is not reasonable.
Plaintiff replies, discussing that the Secretary of State confirms that JDM is under suspension.
(Gentino Reply Decl. Exh. 1.) As such, JDM cannot defend the action so the opposition should not be
considered.
Plaintiff also raises issue that under Revenue and Taxation Code § 19719, anyone who purports to
exercise the rights and powers of a suspended corporation, including a lawyer who appears on its behalf, is
guilty of a misdemeanor. It also asserts that a lawyer who knowingly represents a suspended corporation
and conceals the fact from the court may be subject to sanctions or other adverse consequences.
With JDM suspended, its opposition cannot be considered. As for issues that Plaintiff raises on
reply about defense counsel and restrictions on a lawyer representing a suspended corporation, defense
counsel did disclose JDM’s suspended status in his declaration.
As for the form interrogatories motion, it is granted. At this point, the inspection motion is
unopposed and is also granted. But this does not mean the Court cannot evaluate the sanctions requested,
even for an unopposed motion.
Here, Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $3,048.41 in each motion against the respective Defendants,
which is comprised of: 1.5 hours to research, draft, and file the motion; an anticipated 2 hours to review
opposition, draft reply, review tentative ruling, and attend the hearing at $850/hour, plus filing fee of
$73.41. Plaintiff’s counsel claims 46 years of experience and asserts a reasonable hourly rate for an
attorney in Los Angeles County with more than 20 years of experience is $1,057. (Gentino Decls. ¶¶ 3.)
But this is not Los Angeles County and the amount of time spent on these types of motions by a
lawyer with over 46 years of experience, 3.5 hours in total, is not reasonable, especially one charging
$850/hour. If counsel is going to get that kind of hourly rate, then the amount of time should be reduced.
Because the motion arguments are similar and these are legally straightforward motions, with the hearings
on the same date and time, the Court grants 3 hours total for both motions and split it between the two
motions, plus filings fees. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions of $1,348.41 against Defendant Davis
($1,275 in attorney fees, plus $73.41 filing fee); and sanctions of $1,348.41 awarded against Defendant
JDM ($1,275 in attorney fees, plus $73.41 filing fee).
Defense counsel is correct that because sanctions are not noticed as being sought against him, they
should not be awarded against him.
RULING
For all the reasons stated above, the Court rules as follows:
Given responses have not been served, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses
to form interrogatories from Jeanette Davis and order code compliant responses be provided within 10
days. The Court awards sanctions against Davis in the amount of $1,348.41, payable within 10 days.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to request to inspect writings from
Jeanette Davis Management, which is a suspended corporation. The Court orders code compliant
responses be provided within 10 days, although JDM must obtain a revivor of its corporate status before it
can defend itself in the action. The Court awards sanctions against Jeanette Davis Management in the
amount of $1,348.41, payable within 10 days.