Alarid v. Camarillo

# Case Name Tentative

2. ALARID VS. CAMARILLO 2024-01377164 MOTION TO COMPEL FUTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff Dolores Alarid’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (SPROGS) is MOOT except for sanctions, which are GRANTED.

Plaintiff served the subject discovery on 1/30/26. Defendant served non-substantive responses consisting of objections on 3/31/26 after several extensions. As of 4/10/26, on the date this motion was filed, Defendant had not served substantive verified responses.

In the opposition filed on 5/27/26, Defendant’s counsel states they had difficulty contacting their client and Defendant served supplemental responses on 4/24/26, after this motion was filed. The parties engaged in additional attempts to meet and confer regarding the supplemental responses and Defendant served further supplement responses on 5/19/26.

In reply, Plaintiff does not argue that the supplemental responses remain deficient but maintains the request for sanctions in the amount of $3,385.00 based on seven hours of counsel’s time at $475/hour plus the $60 filing fee. The Court finds this amount was reasonably incurred due to Defendant’s failure to serve substantive responses to discovery after Plaintiff’s counsel provided multiple extensions to respond. Therefore, the request for sanctions is granted, payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).

3. HOME OF THE MINISTERING ANGEL VS. SENECA FAMILY MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS OF AGENCIES 2025-01498434 MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS

Defendant Seneca Family of Agencies’ Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is GRANTED; however, the motion is CONTINUED to 8/11/26 at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. C32 for further consideration of Seneca’s fee request.

Seneca’s Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is GRANTED as to Exhibits 2-4. It is DENIED as to Exhibit 1 as it is not relevant to the ruling.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff filed the operative verified First Amended Complaint (FAC) on 9/15/25. (ROA 19.) In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges it entered into an agreement with Canyon Acres Residential Center (CARC) in or about May 1987 concerning real property commonly known as 233 S. Quintana Drive, Anaheim, CA (Property), “whereby CARC agreed to purchase the Property from Plaintiff for the price of $760,000.00 subject to a re-purchase agreement allowing Plaintiff to re-purchase the property for a specific price if the Property was to be sold to another party other than Plaintiff.” (FAC ¶¶ 3, 7.) A