Michael Molina v. Behavioral Systems Southwest, Inc.

responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to compel Johnson's responses to the FROGs. (Mot., p. 1.)

On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff served the FROGs on Johnson. (Davidson Decl., P. 3, Ex. 1.)

As of May 19, 2026, Johnson had not served his initial responses on Plaintiff. (Davidson Decl., P.P. 14-15.)

As the time for Johnson to respond to the FROGs has now passed, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Johnson's response to the FROGs, without stating objections. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290.)

Additionally, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,210.00, consisting of 0.8 hours for meet-and-confer correspondence, 4.5 hours preparing the instant motion, and an anticipated 1.5 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply, and 0.5 hours appearing at the hearing, at an hourly rate of $450, plus a $60.00 filing fee. (Davidson Decl., P. 12.)

The Court is statutorily required to impose a monetary sanction against a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel initial responses to a request for production of documents and/or interrogatories, unless the Court finds circumstances would make the imposition a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290, subd. (c).)

The Court finds the requested hours excessive. No opposition was filed, and the Court finds 4.5 hours excessive for a straightforward and unopposed motion to compel initial responses. The Court therefore awards sanctions against Johnson in the reduced amount of $1,185.00, consisting of 2 hours to prepare the instant motion and 0.5 hours to appear at the hearing at an hourly rate of $450 and $60 for the filing fee.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Glass Residential Group, Inc.'s motion to compel Defendant Joseph Keyshawn Johnson's initial responses to Plaintiff's form interrogatories, set one, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Glass Residential Group, Inc. is AWARDED sanctions against Defendant Joseph Keyshawn Johnson in the total amount of $ 1,185.00.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to give notice.

DATED: August 24, 2026 _____________________ Lee S. Arian Judge of the Superior Court

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST MICHAEL MOLINA, Plaintiff,

vs. BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST, INC. Defendant. CASE NO: 26VECV01203 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST, INC.'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE Dept. U 8:30 a.m. August 24, 2026

A. BACKGROUND

This case arises from an injury suffered from an alleged breach of duty of care.

Plaintiff Michael Molina ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint on February 27, 2026, against Defendant Behavioral Systems Southwest, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleging causes of action for general negligence, intentional tort, and violation of prisoner's federal civil rights.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached its duty of care when Plaintiff was injured after slipping and falling when instructed by a floor manager to clean the top of a locker.

On June 15, 2026, Defendant filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike.

On August 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC").

B. RULING

Defendant Behavioral Systems Southwest's demurrer and motion to strike are made MOOT by Plaintiff Michael Molina's first amended complaint.

C. LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer is a procedure to object to a pleading set forth under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, et seq.

Because a demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters, a demurrer analysis considers only those defects which appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.)

When considering demurrers, courts assume the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading and read the allegations liberally and in context. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.)

A demurrer for sufficiency attacks a pleading on the ground that it does not contain facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10 (e); Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Parties may also demur to causes of action individually. In either case, the procedure is also called a 'demurrer for sufficiency,' and it tests the pleading by itself, alone and disconnected from extraneous matters. (Hahn, at p. 747.)

D. DISCUSSION

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff's third cause of action for violation of prisoner's federal civil rights on the grounds the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim against Defendant. (Dem., p. 3.)

Defendant further moves to strike portions of the complaint referencing punitive and exemplary damages. (Mot., p. 2.)

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 11, 2026.

Accordingly, the instant demurrer and motion to strike are made moot by the subsequent filing of the FAC.

"It is well established that an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading." (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1130.)

"Because there is but one complaint in a civil action...the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint." (Id. at p. 1131.)

E. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Behavioral Systems Southwest's demurrer and motion to strike are made MOOT by Plaintiff Michael Molina's first amended complaint.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to give notice.

DATED: August 24, 2026 _____________________ Lee S. Arian Judge of the Superior Court | Home