LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV409763 Spencer v. National Builders & Motion: Compel is MOOT, Services Inc. (Class Action/PAGA) request for sanctions is DENIED

Click LINE 2 24CV446394 MAHESH JAMMALAMADAKA et al vs Hearing: Motion for Class MARK SAWYER et al Certification is GRANTED

Click on line 2 for tentative ruling LINE 3 24CV453335 Taylor Morrison of California, LLC et Hearing: Demurrer is al vs AIG Specialty Insurance Company SUSTAINED with 20 days’ et al leave to amend, Motion to Strike is MOOT

Click on lines 3-4 for tentative ruling LINE 4 24CV453335 Taylor Morrison of California, LLC et Hearing: Motion to Strike al vs AIG Specialty Insurance Company et al LINE 5 25CV465582 Juan Andrade-Ortega vs APEX Motion: Reconsider is CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a DENIED California corporation et al Click on line 5 for tentative ruling LINE 6 LINE 7 LINE 8 LINE 9 LINE 10 LINE 11 LINE 12 LINE 13

Calendar Line 1

Case Name: Spencer v. National Builders & Services Inc. Case No.: 23CV409763

This is a class and representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Plaintiff Sinuhe Nahkizi Spencer alleges defendant National Builders & Services Inc. committed various wage and hour violations.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses, which is opposed by Defendant. For reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is MOOT and his request for sanctions is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

According to the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), Defendant failed to: pay all minimum wages; pay all overtime wages; provide compliant rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; provide compliant meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; maintain accurate employment records; pay wages timely during employment and at separation; reimburse for necessary business expenses; provide accurate itemized wage statements.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff initiated this action on January 10, 2023, with the filing of the complaint, and on March 16, 2023, he filed the operative FAC, which asserts the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay all minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums; (4) failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; (5) failure to maintain accurate employment records; (6) failure to pay wages timely during employment;(7) failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation; (8) failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures; (9) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (10) violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law; and (11) civil penalties under PAGA.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Beth McGowen Judge Beth McGowen dossier Other Motion to Compel Discovery in SANTACLARA All SANTACLARA County rulings Other Class Action/PAGA cases

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

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. (Code Civ. Proc section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs to 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.) A party waives its objections to a discovery request when it does not serve a timely response to the request. (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.290(a).) Even if objections do not need to be verified, objections will be waived if the responding party “fails to file any response within the statutory time period.” (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.) The burden is on the responding party to justify any objections or failure to fully answer. (Coy v.

Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 (Coy).)

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one (“SROGs”).

On June 27, 2024, the Court partially lifted the discovery stay to permit discovery regarding class certification. (Declaration of Maria Burciaga (“Burciaga Decl.”), ¶ 4.) On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff served SROGs, Set One. Defendant’s responses were due on October 25, 2024, however, it failed to provide any responses on or before the due date. (Burciaga Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) On October 30, 2024, the parties met and conferred about Defendant’s failure to provide timely responses, and they agreed to participate in mediation. (Burciaga Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)

The parties also agreed to stay formal discovery for 30 days (until May 8, 2025) and to exchange informal discovery—Defendant produced a sample of the requested data prior to mediation, which consisted of handwritten timesheets. (Burciaga Decl., ¶ 6.) The mediation did not result in a settlement and on August 21, 2025, the parties met and conferred about Plaintiff’s intent to resume formal discovery. (Burciaga Decl., ¶ 7.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel requested complete responses without objections by August 28, 2025, however, Defendant failed to provide any responses. (Ibid.)

On October 28, 2025, the parties attended an informal discovery conference (“IDC”), but they were unable to resolve the outstanding dispute. (Burciaga Decl., ¶ 8.) On December 16, 2025, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledging that supplemental responses were outstanding and requested an additional three weeks, however, as of the date of Burciaga’s declaration, Defendant had not served verified responses to the SROGs. (Burciaga Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.)

Plaintiff seeks information relevant to Plaintiff’s class and PAGA representative action claims such as details regarding job duties, information relating to the payment of wages, timekeeping policies, reimbursement of business expenses, and meal and rest periods, the associated premiums, and complaints by class members relating to the claims. (Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“MPA”), p. 5:10-14.)

In opposition, Defendant states that current defense counsel Jacob Mojarro (“Mojarro”) inherited the instant matter after prior defense counsel Anne-Leith Matlock abruptly departed their law firm. (Declaration of Mojarro (“Mojarro Decl.”), ¶¶ 2-3.) His initial review of the file indicated that responses had been provided as to Plaintiff’s SROGs in July 2024, with a comprehensive set of objections. (Mojarro Decl., ¶ 4.) However, he later realized the subject SROGs were different. (Mojarro Decl., ¶ 5.)

At the October 28, 2025 IDC, Mojarro disclosed that he was recently assigned the case and he did not have a clear explanation for the failure to respond. (Mojarro Decl., ¶ 6.) He believed the prior objection only responses were responsive to the subject SROGs, thus, he agreed to provide “supplemental” responses and Plaintiff’s counsel did not correct Mojarro at the IDC. (Mojarro Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) After the Court issued its October 28, 2025 minute order, Defendant produced 1,275 responsive documents. (Mojarro Decl., ¶ 8.)

In April 2026, Defendant was served with Plaintiff’s motion and Mojarro discovered the discovery error. (Defendant’s Opposition (“Opp.”), p. 3:2-4.) Defendant has since responded to the SROGs. (Opp., p. 3:4-6.) As Defendant has provided substantive discovery responses without objection, there is no basis for the Court to compel responses. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is MOOT.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,919.20.

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. (Code Civ. Proc section 2030.290, subd. (b).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)].) “[T]he phrase ‘substantial justification’ has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact.” (Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434 (Doe).)

Here, there is no information or explanation regarding the failure to respond by prior defense counsel. However, it appears the case was handed off suddenly to Mojarro who reviewed the discovery at that time. While he could have discovered the error sooner, it does not appear that his failure to do so was done purposefully or in bad faith. Moreover, Mojarro acted promptly after discovering the error. Thus, in this Court’s view, defense counsel acted with substantial justification such that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel response is MOOT and the request for sanctions is DENIED.

The Court will prepare the order.