HARRIS vs TURNER-RILEY, et al.

26CV189299: HARRIS vs TURNER-RILEY, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY PLAINTIFF RUSSELL D. HARRIS TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT SABRINA CUPID TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW AGUIRRE; filed by RUSSELL D. HARRIS (Plaintiff) CRS# 998771206171 in Department 511

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Lupe Garcia

The Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion filed by RUSSELL D. HARRIS on 08/06/2026 is Granted.

NOTICE: All attorneys and unrepresented parties who contest the tentative ruling and request an opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing must notify all other parties of their intention to appear by telephone or in person no later than the day before the hearing, by 4:00 p.m. PT. Parties and attorneys must also formally indicate their objection on eCourt and by sending an email message to the Department 511 clerk at Dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov. The parties and attorneys must clearly indicate in their email messages the name of the case and the case number. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the Court if the Court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of a party’s intent to appear is not received by the deadline. See California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 3.30(d).

The motion of Plaintiff Russell D. Harris to compel Defendant Sabrina Cupid to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s judicial council form interrogatories, set one (general), pursuant to CCP §§ 1170.8 and 2030.290(a), is GRANTED.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants Marion S. Turner-Riley, April Wanda Dee Riley and Sabrina Cupid for unlawful detainer on May 22, 2026. Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim is based on his acquisition of title to the property located at 51 Elysian Fields Drive, in Oakland, at a trustee’s sale on April 9, 2026, and the subsequent perfecting of title on April 28, 2026. See CCP § 1161a(b)(3). Defendant Turner-Riley is the former owner of the property and the trustor of the deed of trust executed on November 19, 2021. Defendants April Wanda Dee Riley and Sabrina Cupid are allegedly the daughters of Turner-Riley.

On July 21, 2026, Plaintiff served the subject form interrogatories requests on Defendant by overnight mail. Plaintiff mailed the requests for admission to Defendant by using the address on the caption of Defendant’s Answer to Complaint, 51 Elysian Fields Drive, Oakland, CA 94605. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s form interrogatories seek information from Defendant that is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. See CCP § 2017.010. Defendant failed to serve her responses to the form interrogatories by the July 28, 2026 deadline. See CCP §§ 1013(c) and 2030.260(b).

Plaintiff has made the required showing that his attorneys served the form interrogatories on Defendant by overnight mail to the address provided by Defendant on her Answer to Complaint. 26CV189299: HARRIS vs TURNER-RILEY, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY PLAINTIFF RUSSELL D. HARRIS TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT SABRINA CUPID TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW AGUIRRE; filed by RUSSELL D. HARRIS (Plaintiff) CRS# 998771206171 in Department 511 Defendant still had not served her responses when Plaintiff filed his motion to compel on August 6, 2026.

On August 7, 2026, one day after Plaintiff filed and served the motion to compel, Defendant filed her unverified and incomplete responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories without attaching it to a declaration or a memorandum in opposition to the motion. Defendant is advised that parties are not permitted to file their responses to interrogatories with the Court unless they are attached to their motion papers. See Rule of Court 3.250(a)(8). In this case, Defendant’s filing of her incomplete and unverified responses does not support an argument that Plaintiff’s motion to compel should not be granted. A party’s unverified responses to discovery requests is the equivalent of no response at all. See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.

Plaintiff’s request that the Court order Defendant to pay a monetary sanction in the sum of $640.00, pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2030.290(c), is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the reasonably incurred attorney’s fees as the prevailing party on the motion. The Court would have been authorized to award monetary sanctions even if Defendant’s late responses fully complied with CCP § 2030.210 et seq. See Rule of Court 3.1348(a) (discovery sanctions may be issued even if responding party complies before the hearing).

Counsel established that his $400.00 hourly billing rate is reasonable when compared with the rates charged by other landlord-tenant attorneys in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Court, however, does not find that counsel was required to spend a total of 1.6 hours on this motion because it is very similar to the other motions filed against Defendants Turner-Riley and Riley on the August 31, 2026 calendar. The Court finds that counsel reasonably spent 1.0 hour drafting the motion and reviewing Defendant’s responses filed on August 7, 2026.

The Court therefore orders Defendant to pay a discovery sanction in the sum of $400.00. Defendant shall have until September 23, 2026 to pay the discovery sanction by sending a check in the sum of $400.00 to Plaintiff’s attorneys in Southern California by mail.

The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will deliver a copy of the order to the parties. Plaintiff shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than September 4, 2026. Defendant shall serve her verified responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories within five days of the date of service of the notice of entry of order. Defendant has waived her right to assert objections because she did not assert them timely. See CCP § 2030.290(a).

Defendant Sabrina Cupid is advised of her obligation to deliver courtesy copies of all papers filed in support of or in opposition to a motion to Department 511 no later than the court day immediately after their filing with the Clerk’s Office. Defendant’s obligation to deliver courtesy copies is derived from the Department 511 standing orders and Rule 3.30(c) of the Alameda County Superior Court Local Rules.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV189299: HARRIS vs TURNER-RILEY, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY PLAINTIFF RUSSELL D. HARRIS TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT SABRINA CUPID TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW AGUIRRE; filed by RUSSELL D. HARRIS (Plaintiff) CRS# 998771206171 in Department 511