Jong Park vs Kuniyoshi Investment, Inc. et al

The court shall make this order unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280.)

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280, Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280.)

B. Effect of Failure to Oppose a Motion

The effect of a party's failure to oppose a motion is to deem the moving papers meritorious and grant the motion.

The appellate court in Sierra Craft, Inc. v. Magnum Enterprises, Inc. applied the principle that failure to oppose a motion may result in the court granting the motion, although it clarified that statutory procedural requirements remain mandatory. (Sierra Craft, Inc. v. Magnum Enters., Inc. (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4th 1252.)

While local rules or practices may treat failure to oppose as a waiver of objections or an admission that the motion is meritorious, these rules cannot override statutory requirements. Where a motion turns on the failure to comply with statutory discovery obligations rather than on evidentiary showings, the absence of opposition confirms that the moving party has established the necessary elements: proper service, failure to respond, and lack of substantial justification.

C. Mandatory Nature of Discovery Sanctions

Monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act are mandatory, not discretionary, when a party's failure to serve timely responses necessitates a motion to compel.

The statute provides that the court "shall" impose a monetary sanction unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2023.030, Cal Code Civ Proc § 2023.030.)

The use of the mandatory term "shall" leaves no room for judicial discretion when the statutory conditions are met. (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280, Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280.)

Section 2023.030 authorizes the court to impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2023.030, Cal Code Civ Proc § 2023.030.)

If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of the Discovery Act, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2023.030.)

D. Sanctions Despite Eventual Compliance

Late compliance with discovery obligations does not excuse the failure to serve timely responses or defeat the moving party's entitlement to sanctions.

When a party files a motion to compel based on the failure to serve timely responses, that motion is "necessitated" by the responding party's failure, and sanctions attach at that moment.

The statutory language in Section 2033.280(c) makes clear that sanctions are mandatory when the failure to serve a timely response "necessitated this motion." (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280, Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280.)

The fact that a party subsequently provides responses—whether before or after the motion is filed—does not eliminate the need for the motion that was already required. The propounding party has already incurred the expense of preparing and filing the motion due to the responding party's statutory violation.

To deny sanctions in such circumstances would undermine the Discovery Act's purpose of ensuring timely compliance and would reward dilatory conduct.

Section 2033.280(c) specifically addresses the scenario where responses are served before the hearing, but only for purposes of determining whether the matters should be deemed admitted—not for purposes of sanctions.

The statute provides that the court shall order matters deemed admitted "unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280.)

However, the very next sentence states: "It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion." (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280, Cal Code Civ Proc § 2033.280.)

The statute draws a clear distinction: eventual compliance may prevent matters from being deemed admitted, but it does not prevent the imposition of sanctions.

Similarly, for interrogatories, Section 2030.290(c) requires the court to impose monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless substantial justification or unjust circumstances exist. (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2030.290.)

A party who forces the propounding party to file a motion by failing to serve timely responses, and who then belatedly serves responses, has "unsuccessfully opposed" the motion in substance—the motion achieved its objective of securing responses, confirming that it was meritorious and necessary.

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff properly served Requests for Admission, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two, on Defendant Kuniyoshi Investment, Inc. on October 23, 2025.

Defendant failed to serve responses within the time prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. As a result, Defendant waived any objections to the discovery requests, and Plaintiff was entitled to seek an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2033.280.)

Defendant did not file a timely written opposition to the Motion. Although Defendant ultimately served responses on or about April 27, 2026, more than three months after the Motion was filed and served, that belated compliance does not excuse its failure to comply with the statutory deadline or negate the necessity of the Motion.

The record reflects that Plaintiff was required to file the Motion to obtain the requested discovery.

Because Defendant served responses to the Requests for Admission before the hearing and those responses appear to be in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, an order deeming the matters admitted is not warranted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

However, Defendant's post-motion compliance does not preclude an award of monetary sanctions.

Monetary sanctions are mandatory where a party's failure to serve timely responses necessitates a motion to compel, unless the court finds that the sanctioned party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant has made no showing of substantial justification for its failure to timely respond, nor has it identified any circumstances that would render sanctions unjust.

Plaintiff seeks $1,680.00 in monetary sanctions, representing four hours of attorney time at an hourly rate of $420.00. Counsel declares that three hours were reasonably expended preparing the Motion and one additional hour preparing the reply. The Court finds both the time expended and the hourly rate reasonable.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover $1,680.00 in reasonable attorney's fees incurred as a result of Defendant's discovery misuse.

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Kuniyoshi Investment, Inc.'s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, is MOOT. Defendant Kuniyoshi Investment, Inc. has served responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two. Those responses shall stand as Defendant's verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Set Two.

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Have Request for Admissions, Set One, Deemed Admitted is DENIED as moot, given that Defendant Kuniyoshi Investment, Inc. served responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, before the hearing on this Motion in substantial compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220.

3. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

4. Defendant Kuniyoshi Investment, Inc. and its counsel of record (if any) are jointly and severally ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff Jong Hee Park in the amount of $1,680.00, representing reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's failure to serve timely responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two.

5. Said monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,680.00 shall be paid to Plaintiff's counsel, Noel D. Hibbard, at the Law Offices of Noel Hibbard, 2099 Lincoln Ave Ste 202, San Jose, CA 95125, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

6. Failure to pay the monetary sanctions as ordered may result in the imposition of further sanctions, including but not limited to issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 31, 2026

Hon. Panteha E. Saban Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara

Line 5 & 6 Case Name: Terry Kwong et al vs Elaine Yang et al