ALI A. AMINI ET AL VS. ANDREW LINTON ET AL

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25678272 - September 2, 2025 Hearing date: September 2, 2025 Case number: CUD25678272 Case title: ALI A. AMINI ET AL VS. ANDREW LINTON ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25678272 | Case Title: | | ALI A. AMINI ET AL VS. ANDREW LINTON ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-02 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Establishing Admissions To Defendant Linton'S Requests For Admissions, Set One, And Set Three, And Defendant Greep'S Requests For Admissions, Set Two; And Compelling Resposes To Form Interrogatories; And For Sanctions | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for September 2, 2025, line 5.

Defendants' Motion for Order Establishing Admissions to Defendant Linton's Requests for Admissions, Set One and Set Three, and Defendant Greep's Requests for Admissions, Set Two; and Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories; and for Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant Linton's declaration in support of this motion gives an incomplete and misleading set of facts regarding the discovery responses served by Plaintiffs. The Court, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of the supplemental filings regarding Defendants' previous discovery motion, which detail all of the discovery propounded by Defendants and all of the responses served by Plaintiffs up to that point, including most of the discovery now at issue in this motion.

In response to Defendant Linton's Requests for Admissions, Set One, Plaintiffs timely served objections properly signed by Plaintiffs' counsel, and Defendants' motion contains no argument that the objections are improper or should be stricken.

In response to Defendant Linton's Requests for Admissions, Set Three, Plaintiffs timely served objections properly signed by Plaintiffs' counsel, specifically on the basis that Defendant Linton had exceeded the permissible number of Requests for Admissions that could be propounded, and Defendant Linton previously acknowledged this defect to the Court.

In response to Defendant Greep's Requests for Admissions, Set Two, Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs served at least untimely responses, before both the filing of and the hearing on this motion; Defendants do not explain why the relief they request should not then be barred by CCP 2033.280(c).

Finally, in response to Defendant Linton's Form Interrogatories-Unlawful Detainer, Set One, Plaintiffs timely served responses. Aside from identifying Plaintiffs' counsel as the person who prepared the responses, the responses consist entirely of objections properly signed by Plaintiffs' counsel. Defendants' motion contains no argument or separate statement explaining why the objections are improper or that they should be stricken, and the need for the party to verify the fact that their attorney prepared the responses when the attorney has already signed the responses is immaterial.