Jimenez v. Donel, et al.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED. Leave to amend will only be granted for Plaintiff to add facts concerning the operation of a conspiracy between Copart and the other defendants concerning a specific tort, but not for a standalone cause of action for conspiracy.

UCL Business and Professions Code section 17200 prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200.) "An unlawful business practice or act is an act or practice, committed pursuant to business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by law." (Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.) "A business practice is unfair within the meaning of the UCL if it violates established public policy or if it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes injury to consumers which outweighs its benefits." (McKell v.

Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1473.) To establish a fraudulent practice under the UCL, the plaintiff must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived. (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 806; see Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1256 [fraud prong of the UCL is less rigorous than common law fraud as common law fraud requires allegations of actual falsity and reasonable reliance while fraud under UCL does not].)

Copart asserts that mere negligent storage of a vehicle does not establish a violation of the UCL. However, the FAC alleges the basic elements of a UCL violation against Copart. (FAC P.P. 149-153.) More specifically, the FAC alleges that Copart maintains a business practice (improper storage of vehicles) which violates an identifiable law (Civ. Code Sec.Sec. 1813 et seq.). (FAC P.P. 24-25, 60-64.) Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED as to the UCL cause of action. Plaintiff has 20 days to file an amended complaint.

Donel, et al. CASE NO.: 25SMCV02505 MOTION: Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses HEARING DATE: 9/1/2026

Legal Standard

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP section 2031.010 inspection demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP Sec. 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP Sec. 2030.290(b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.)

Pursuant to CCP section 2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). "Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must 'move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction' under Sec. 2023.010 et seq." (CCP, Sec. 2033.280(b).)

The court "shall" grant the motion to deem RFA 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." (CCP, Sec. 2033.280(c).)

ANALYSIS

Defendant Donel Investments LLC moves to compel Plaintiff Javier Jimenez's verified responses, without objection to the following discovery: a) Second Set of Special Interrogatories; b) Second Set of Form Interrogatories; c) Requests for Admission, Set One; and d) Production of Documents, Set Two (collectively, the "Subject Discovery"). Defendant also requests monetary sanctions against Javier and his counsel of record, Now Law Firm, APLC, in connection with the above motions, in the following amounts: a) $3,310.00; b) $3,310.00; c) $3,960.00; and d) 3,310.00.

On June 1, 2026, Donel served the Subject Discovery upon Jiminez's counsel via electronic service. (Donel Decls., P. 2.) Jimenez did not serve any response or request an extension. (Id., P.P. 3-4.) Jimenez has not opposed the instant motions. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. Jimenez must serve initial responses, without objection, within 15 days. Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted.

As to sanctions, the Court finds the noticed sanctions to be unreasonable and excessive in light of the simple and duplicative nature of the motions. Additionally, the lack of opposition removed the need for a reply. Therefore, mandatory monetary sanctions are granted in the reduced total amount of $2,840.00, inclusive of costs. Sanctions are imposed in favor of Donel's counsel of record, jointly and severally against Jimenez and his counsel of record. Sanctions are to be paid in 30 days.

Case Number: 26SMCV02046 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: M CASE NAME: Ferrari Financial Services, Inc., v. Preciado