Teodo Holdings, LLC vs. Nicholson, Delores

Re: Teodo Holdings, LLC vs. Nicholson, Delores Case No.: PCL327458 Date: July 21, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke Motion: Defendant/Judgment Creditor Motions to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Special Interrogatories and (2) Requests for Production of Documents; Sanctions Tentative Ruling: (1) and (2) To find the motions moot via service of responses on June 17, 2026; to order sanctions imposed against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $470; sanctions are due no later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion.

Facts Common to (1) and (2) In this matter, Defendant/Judgment Creditor obtained a judgment after trial in the amount of $9,250 and indicates further costs incurred in attempting collection thereof. As part of the collection efforts, Defendant/Judgment Creditor served, on May 5, 2026, Special Interrogatories and Demands for Production on Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor via counsel. Responses were due no later than June 9, 2026. As of the filing of these motions on June 16, 2026, no responses had been received. Defendant/Judgment Creditor seeks to compel initial responses thereto and for sanctions in the amount of $515 as to each motion. In opposition, Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor indicates service of responses on June 17, 2026 and that therefore these motions, and the request for sanctions, are moot.

Authority and Analysis A judgment creditor may propound interrogatories and requests for production to the judgment debtor, which may be enforced in the same manner as written discovery in a civil action. (Code Civ. Proc, Sec.Sec. 708.020(a), (c); 708.030(a), (c).) The written discovery here seeks facts about the nature and location of a judgment debtor's assets, which is permissible.

(1) and (2) - Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Based on the service of initial responses on June 17, 2026, the Court finds these motions moot with respect to compelling initial responses.

Sanctions The Court finds sanctions are warranted in this instance and that neither Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor nor counsel acted with substantive justification in failing to timely serve responses and imposition of the sanctions would not be unjust. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.320; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) However, the Court finds the reasonable and appropriate amount of monetary sanctions on this motion to be less than requested.