Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents
alleges a claim for breach of contract for Defendants' failure to complete the installation work, requiring Plaintiff to hire third-party contractors to complete the work. (Complaint, P. 19.)
Plaintiff does not allege a certain amount of damage. (Complaint, P. 46.)
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contracted with One Stop "for all related work that fell outside of the scope of his agreement with CTG ("Independent Work"). The Independent Work was estimated to cost over $30,000.00." (Complaint, P. 12.) Plaintiff alleges damage for having to hire another contractor to finish the job. Therefore, the complaint is defective for failure to allege damage in a sum certain.
3. None of the records are authenticated. Plaintiff submits evidence showing damage by declaration of Plaintiff's counsel who lacks foundation for any of the invoices submitted to the Court. Code of Civil Procedure section 585 "specifically requires that the facts stated in the affidavit or affidavits shall be within the personal knowledge of the affiant and shall be set forth with particularity, and each affidavit shall show affirmatively that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently thereto." (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287; Evid. Code, Sec. 1400. ["Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law."].)
4. Attorney's fees are awarded pursuant to local rule, not by motion. When a promissory note, contract, or statute provides for the recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees, the court applies a scheduled fee that is based on the principal damage suffered (Los Angeles Superior Court Rules, Rule 3.214.) Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.
25STCV06899 Hernandez v. Aly, et al. Friday August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AS TO DEFENDANT, 3025-3027 VERMONT PLAZA, LLC; REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS (0040) [TENTATIVE] ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AS TO DEFENDANT 3025-3027 VERMONT PLAZA, LLC; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (7706))
I. BACKGROUND
This is an action for breach of implied warranty of habitability and related claims for Defendants' alleged failure to remedy conditions in Plaintiff's residential unit. Plaintiff brings two motions to compel responses to special interrogatories and request for production of documents by Defendant, Tarek Aly ("Aly"). Plaintiff requests imposition of sanctions for fees incurred in preparing two motions.
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?”
Plaintiff served all discovery at issue on Defendant on April 11, 2026. Defendant did not respond by May 13, 2026, when responses were due. Both motions refer to a property inspection noticed to take place on May 18, 2026, at which Defense counsel failed to appear and later claimed he had never received the notice. Defense counsel asked to reschedule but did not ask for the notice to be sent again which suggests to Plaintiff's counsel that defense counsel is not acting in good faith. Plaintiff argues this is consistent with Defendant's broader pattern of non-responsiveness.
Plaintiff does not request an order compelling Defendant to appear for inspection. Rather, Plaintiff asks for an order to compel Defendant to serve initial responses without objection. Defendant did not file oppositions, and Plaintiff did not file corresponding replies.
II. DISCUSSION
Where a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories and a document request, the court has authority to compel a response. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.2030.290 subd. (b), Sec.2031.300 subd. (b).) Untimely responses result in a waiver of objections. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290 subd. (a), Sec.2031.300 subd. (a). As Defendant did not serve responses, all objections are waived.
Imposition of sanctions is warranted for Defendant's failure to show substantial justification for failing to comply with discovery obligations. However, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for imposition of additional monetary sanctions on Defendant pursuant to Civil Procedure Sec.2023.050. That section permits additional sanctions of $1,000 if the Court finds that a party did not respond in good faith to the document request or an inspection demand. There is no evidence that Defendant acted in bad faith in failing to respond to discovery to the document request. The request for inspection is not the discovery at issue in these motions.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS both motions. Defendant, 3025-3027 VERMONT PLAZA, LLC, is ordered to provide verified responses to Set One of Request for Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories without objections within 10 days. The Court grants the request for imposition of monetary sanctions for each motion in a reduced amount, as an opposition and reply were not filed. The Court allows allots 30 minutes to appear per motion. Motion 4424 |
4 hours x $575/hour | $2,300.00 | Motion 0849 | 4 hours x $575/hour | $2,300.00 | Total sanctions | | =SUM(ABOVE) \# "$#,##0.00;($#,##0.00)" $4,600.00 | Defendant, 3025-3027 VERMONT PLAZA, LLC, and counsel, Bruce Boice, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay Plaintiff's counsel $4,600.00, within 10 days.
Case Number: 25STCV08648 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: 414 25STCV08648 Ruvalcaba v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al. Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Sec. 871.26 (7685)
I. BACKGROUND
This action arises from alleged violations of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act in connection with a warranty contract issued by Defendant manufacturer. Plaintiff argues Defendant failed to disclose initial documents as required by statute. The 60-day deadline expired on October 31, 2025. Plaintiff asks for an order compelling Defendant's production of documents and issuing mandatory sanctions of $2,500 against Defendant, Nissan North America, Inc. Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant, who failed to file an opposition.
II. DISCUSSION
The statute at issue requires both parties to disclose documents within 60 days after the answer or responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26 (b); (h)(1). Defendant did not comply. (Shahian decl., P. 5.)