Martinez v. C Lake CA4/1

Filed 1/23/25 Martinez v. C Lake CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ORQUÍDEA ROJAS MARTÍNEZ et al., D083177

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021- 00037659-CU-BC-CTL) C LAKE LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eddie C. Sturgeon, Judge. Affirmed. Orquídea Rojas Martínez and Ricardo Ruiz Barranco, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Skebba, Buechler & Orlov, David E. Czelusniak and Timothy McNulty for Defendant and Respondent.

Orquídea Rojas Martínez and Ricardo Ruiz Barranco appeal the judgment dismissing their action against C Lake LLC after the trial court granted a motion for terminating sanctions for their repeated refusals to

respond to written discovery requests. Appellants have forfeited their appeal by presenting no argument for reversal. We therefore affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Appellants rented space from C Lake LLC (C Lake) at a recreational vehicle park where they allegedly were subjected to threats, physical abuse, and unsafe conditions. They sued C Lake and others to recover damages for injuries they allegedly suffered. C Lake answered the complaint and served appellants with form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. C Lake extended the deadline to respond to the discovery requests, but appellants did not respond at all. C Lake filed motions to compel responses and asked the trial court to sanction appellants $710 for costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with the motions. Appellants did not oppose the motions. The court ordered them to respond to the discovery requests within 25 days but denied C Lake’s request for monetary sanctions. Appellants did not respond as the court had ordered them to do. C Lake filed second motions to compel responses and renewed its request for monetary sanctions. Appellants did not oppose the second motions. The trial court ordered appellants to respond within 20 days and sanctioned them $1,420. Rather than comply with the trial court’s order, appellants filed a “motion to disqualify or remove the judge and objection to the intention of sanction that the judge wants to impose.” They accused the court of violating unspecified constitutional rights and statutes designed to protect the privacy of their personal information. Appellants alleged the court was “prejudiced” because it had granted C Lake’s motions but not theirs.