Kevin Robinson v. Westside Loan Office

Defendant Westside Loan Office's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents: Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions, is granted in part, and denied in part. Plaintiff Kevin Robinson is to serve verified responses to the requests without objections, within 20 days' service of this order. Defendant's request for an award of sanctions is denied.

Analysis: On March 18, 2026, Defendant Westside Loan Office ("Defendant") served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff Kevin Robinson ("Plaintiff"). (Motion, Erikson Decl., P.P.2-5 and Exhs. A-B.)

As of Defendant's filing of the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents: Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions on July 28, 2026, Plaintiff had not served responses despite Defendant's effort to meet and confer. (Id. at P.P.6-12 and Exhs. C-D.)

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff's responses to the requests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300. There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300.) Further, the motion can be brought at any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300.) Based on Plaintiff's failure to respond, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling code-compliant responses without objections.

Defendant also moves for an award of sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), which provides for sanctions if a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses without reasonable justification. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300, subd. (c) ["The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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."].) However, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the instant Motion.

Defendant also points to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, the Supreme Court observed: It is already well-established that a court may not rely on [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2023.030 to override the limitations prescribed by any other applicable sanctions provision in the [Civil Discovery] Act. A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision. And where it invokes that authority, it is constrained by the long-settled rules generally governing the imposition of discovery sanctions under the Act. (City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 74-75.)

Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff's failure to serve discovery responses is "an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision."

Therefore, the Court declines to invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030.

Conclusion

Defendant Westside Loan Office's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents: Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions, is granted in part, and denied in part. Plaintiff Kevin Robinson is to serve verified responses to the requests without objections, within 20 days' service of this order. Defendant's request for an award of sanctions is denied. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 26STLC03144 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 26

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Janie S. Kim dba Janie K. Designs' Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is continued to 10/26/2026 at 10:00 am in Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse. By 09/29/2026, Plaintiff is to file proof of service of the Motion and Notice of New Hearing Date upon Defendant Roseark, Inc. Order to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation of Defendant Roseark, Inc. is scheduled for 09/22/2026 at 9:30 am in Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

Analysis: On May 7, 2026, Plaintiff Janie S. Kim dba Janie K. Designs ("Plaintiff"), in propria persona, filed the instant action for breach of contract and conversion against Defendants Roseark, Inc. ("Defendant Roseark, Inc.") and Roseark, LLC ("Defendant Roseark, LLC"). Defendant Roseark, Inc. filed its Answer to the Complaint on June 8, 2026. Plaintiff's request for default against Defendant Roseark, LLC was entered on July 13, 2026. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on July 17, 2026.

Discussion

The Motion is not accompanied by a proof of service demonstrating service of the moving papers or notice of the hearing date upon Defendant Roseark, Inc. A motion and notice of hearing date must be served upon the opposing party at least 16 court days prior to the hearing; if served by mail the time increases by five days. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1005.) Plaintiff's failure to serve Defendant Roseark, Inc. with the Motion and notice of hearing by July 10, 2026 is a violation of due process and of the statutory notice requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) Therefore, the Motion cannot be granted at this time.

The Court additionally notes that Defendant Roseark, Inc.'s Answer was not filed by an attorney. (Answer, filed 06/08/26, p. 1.) It is black letter law that a corporation cannot represent itself in court. (Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578 (citing Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729-730).) This rule applies to all entities regarded as separate from their owners, including partnerships and unincorporated associations. (See Clean Air Transport Systems, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at 578.) Accordingly, the Court