MOLINA V. SPACE X

Analysis

Plaintiff's unopposed motion establishes it propounded each of the subject sets of discovery on Precision or Eberhart on August 8, 2025. (Martinez-Genzon Decls., P.P. 3.) The deadline for response was September 15, 2025. (Ibid.) After granting Defendants a one-month extension, no response was forthcoming. (Id., P.P. 5.) Defendants did not respond to written followup. (Id., P.P. 6.) No responses had been received when the motions were filed. (Id., P.P. 7.) Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses to all subject discovery and deeming matters admitted.

Sanctions

"The court shall impose a monetary sanction under [section 2023.010 et seq.] against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel [initial responses] ... 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." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c) [interrogatories], 2031.300(c) [requests for production]; 2033.280(c) [requests for admission].) The sanction shall "order[] 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." (Id., Sec. 2023.030(a).) "The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Counsel estimates 1.5 hours spent on each of the six motions to compel and 2.0 hours spent on each motion to deem matters admitted, at a reasonable hourly rate of $285.00. She also seeks a $60.00 filing fee for each motion. She seeks 1.0 hour to appear at the hearing for each motion to deem matters admitted and no time for appearance for the other six motions. (See Martinez-Genzon Decls., P.P. 8.)

The Court finds the number of hours indicated per motion to be unreasonable. First and foremost, when comparing each of the four motions filed as to Defendant Dan Eberhart with the same motions filed as to Defendant Precision Pipeline & Paving Inc., the Court finds the motions to be virtually identical, save for the name of the defendant. Additionally, the declaration filed in each of the motions indicates a total number of hours of work described as total time to 1) prepare the motion; 2) review the opposition; and 3) prepare the reply.

No opposition was filed as to any motion, therefore, time estimated for potential review of opposition and preparation of reply are inapplicable. The Court finds a total of.75 hours for each motion at the indicated hourly rate of $285.00 to be reasonable under the circumstances. The Court finds the requested $60.00 filing fee per motion to be reasonable.

Conclusion

Plaintiff's motions and requests for sanctions are GRANTED in their entirety. Defendants are ordered to comply within 30 days.

Case Number: 25NWCV04209 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: D MOLINA V. SPACE X

CASE NO.: 25NWCV04209 HEARING: 08/21/2026 @ 9:30 a.m. #16 TENTATIVE ORDER

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The clerk will give notice.

Plaintiff filed this action against defendant Space X in pro per on November 26, 2025. His initial complaint indicates that he asserts "Other" causes of action and appears to identify his claims as "mass conduct of [illegible]", "gases & wind & lasers", "torcher [sic]", "stocking [sic]", and "discrimination (for [illegible] for the Mexcain [sic] cartel what I'm not but targed [sic] by It."

Plaintiff filed his operative first amended complaint on April 3, 2026. The operative FAC names new defendant Rudyard De Arco and lists dozens of other individual defendants in a four-page attachment. The FAC is handwritten and largely illegible, with the second page of the Judicial Council form pleading covered almost entirely in handwriting, occasionally running vertically in the margins.

On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff appeared for a Case Management Conference. The Court conferred with Plaintiff and observed that he had not filed a Case Management Service or any proof of service. The Court also noted that the FAC is illegible and moved for judgment on the pleadings on this basis, setting the hearing on the Court's motion for this date.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Court's motion to clarify the basis for his claims. He also did not show he can state any of his claims if given an opportunity to amend. The Court's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. | Home -->)" -->