CHANG vs ZENG

25CV139716: CHANG vs ZENG 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by MINJIA JOHN CHANG (Plaintiff) CRS# 492106042895 in Department 17

Tentative Ruling - 09/08/2026 Chad A. Stegeman

The Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion filed by MINJIA JOHN CHANG on 08/06/2026 is Granted in Part.

The Motion of Plaintiff Minjia Chang (“Plaintiff”) to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. At the time of this Tentative Ruling, no Reply has been filed. Monetary sanctions in the amount requested of $3,282 are awarded in the reduced amount of $782 against Defendant and his counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff forthwith. (Avila Decl., ¶ 4.)

Defendant represents that since the filing of this motion, responses to the RFAs have been served on Plaintiff on August 13, 2025. (Kim Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. A.) In light of the fact that there is no Reply, the Court considers it undisputed that the responses, while late, are substantially compliant; “[i]f the party manages to serve its responses before the hearing, the court has no discretion but to deny the motion Everything, in short, depends on submitting responses prior to the hearing.” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396.) It is unsworn responses that are equivalent to no response at all and therefore not in substantial compliance with section 2033.240, subd. (a). (Allen-Pacific, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1551.)

A responding party’s service, prior to the hearing on a “deemed admitted” motion, of substantially compliant responses to requests for admission will defeat a propounding party’s attempt to have the RFAs deemed admitted. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775-776; Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 93, 98.)

Accordingly, Defendant has satisfied the requirements set forth in C.C.P. § 2033.280(a)(1) and (2) and relief is not available pursuant to C.C.P. § 2033.280; the Motion is DENIED as to the request to deem the RFAs admitted. However, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART to compensate Plaintiff for having to bring this motion. Monetary sanctions in the amount requested of $3,282 are awarded in the reduced amount of $782 against Defendant and his counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff forthwith, but no later than 15 days following entry of this order.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court. 25CV139716: CHANG vs ZENG 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by MINJIA JOHN CHANG (Plaintiff) CRS# 492106042895 in Department 17

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed”

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.