Plaintiff Bridge Property Management Company’s Motion to Compel Defendants Armando Vega Pacheco’s, Alexander Chaparro Rodriguez’s and Yenci Leguizamon’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories; Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions; Motion for Sanctions
6/04/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 14 of 18
UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR THURSDAY, JUNE 04, 2026
2:00 PM LINE: 1 26-UDL-00208 BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VS. ARMANDO VEGA PACHECO, ET AL
BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY MERCEDES A. GAVIN ARMANDO VEGA PACHECO PRO SE
PLAINTIFF BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS ARMANDO VEGA PACHECO’S, ALEXANDER CHAPARRO RODRIGUEZ’S AND YENCI LEGUIZAMON’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES - GENERAL, SET ONE, PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES - UNLAWFUL DETAINER, SET ONE, PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, TO DEEM ADMITTED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS ARMANDO VEGA PACHECO, ALEXANDER CHAPARRO RODRIGUEZ AND YENCI LEGUIZAMON IN THE AMOUNT OF $585.00 CCP 11708, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280(b) ET. SEQ.
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Bridge Property Management Company’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories—General, Set One; Form Interrogatories—Unlawful Detainer, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.
The Motion to Deem Facts Admitted is GRANTED.
The matters set forth in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, are hereby DEEMED ADMITTED against Defendants.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Bridge Property Management Company (“Plaintiff”) seeks to evict Defendants Armando Vega Pacheco, Alexander Chaparro Rodriguez, and Yenci Leguizamon (“Defendants”) from real property located at 500 King Drive, Unit #608, Daly City, California 94015 (the “Property”). On October 9, 2025, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a written lease for the Property. On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendants with a 3-day Notice to Quit, alleging that Defendant Armando Vega Pacheco engaged in criminal activity by physically assaulting another resident on January 1, 2026. Defendants remain in possession of the Property after expiration of the notice. Plaintiff seeks possession of the Property, forfeiture of the lease, daily holdover damages of $108 per day from February 1, 2026, and costs.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On April 6, 2026, Defendants filed an answer.
6/04/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 15 of 18
Plaintiff seeks to compel initial responses from Defendants to Form Interrogatories—General, Set One; Form Interrogatories—Unlawful Detainer, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff also seeks to have the matters in Request for Admissions, Set One, deemed admitted against Defendants. On May 12, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendants with this discovery by overnight mail. Defendants failed to provide responses by May 19, 2026. To date, Plaintiff has not received any responses.
Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions of $585 against Defendants.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Plaintiff properly served this Motion on Defendants.
The proof of service shows that Plaintiff served this Motion by overnight delivery on May 21, 2026. A discovery motion in an unlawful detainer action may be made upon giving five days’ notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.8.) Notice of a discovery motion in an unlawful detainer action must also comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1010.6 or 1013 and 1170.8. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1347(a).) Service by overnight delivery adds two court days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (c).) Plaintiff therefore provided adequate notice of this Motion to Defendants.
Failure to serve responses
If a party fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories or requests for production, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) The responding party waives any objections to the interrogatories and requests for production by failing to timely respond, although the court, on motion, may relieve the responding party from waiver if certain conditions are satisfied. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Defendants failed to provide timely responses to the form interrogatories and requests for production. Accordingly, Defendants may be ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, and to produce responsive documents.
Additionally, if a party fails to serve timely responses to requests for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall make this order unless the responding party serves responses to the requests for admission that substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The responding party waives any objections to the requests for admission by failing to timely respond, although the court, on motion, may relieve the responding party from waiver of objections if certain conditions are satisfied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
Defendants failed to provide any responses to the requests for admission. Accordingly, the truth of the matters in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed ADMITTED against Defendants, unless Defendants serve responses that substantially comply with the Code of Civil Procedure before the hearing.
To date, Defendants have not filed any opposition to the Motion.
The Motion of Plaintiff Bridge Property Management Company to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories—General, Set One; Form Interrogatories—Unlawful Detainer, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.
6/04/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 16 of 18
Defendants Armando Vega Pacheco, Alexander Chaparro Rodriguez, and Yenci Leguizamon shall provide verified responses, without objections, to the form interrogatories and request for production, and shall produce all responsive documents responsive to the request for production, within five days of service of written notice of entry of the order by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of $585. Plaintiff’s counsel states that she spent 1.5 hours preparing this Motion at a rate of $350 per hour, for a total of $525. (Gavin Decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff also seeks the $60 filing fee for this Motion. (Id., ¶ 8.)
On a motion to compel responses to form interrogatories or requests for production, the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses, unless the court finds that the party subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
On a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, the court must impose a monetary sanction against the party whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Because Defendants have not provided responses or opposed this Motion, sanctions are warranted for failure to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production. In addition, sanctions are mandatory for Defendants’ failure to respond to the requests for admission. The time claimed and hourly rate are reasonable. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover the filing fee for this Motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $585, payable by Defendants within 30 days of service of written notice of entry of the order by Plaintiff.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The Court alerts the parties to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (amended effective January 1, 2024) regarding the wording of proposed orders.