Tran v. Tran CA2/2

Filed 1/20/16 Tran v. Tran CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

MYLENE TRAN, B256836

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC065391) v.

TY TRAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert A. Dukes. Affirmed.

Daniel J. Koes for Defendant and Appellant.

JHK Law Group and Jae H. Kim for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Ty Tran (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Mylene Tran (plaintiff) following a court trial in this action to quiet title to certain real property in El Monte, California (the property). We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The parties are siblings who held legal title to the property as joint tenants. Plaintiff commenced this action in January 2013 to quiet title in her as the sole owner of the property. Defendant answered and file a cross-complaint to partition the property. On June 6, 2013, the trial court set a trial date of February 10, 2014. On July 24, 2013, plaintiff served defendant with form and special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions. When defendant failed to respond, plaintiff’s counsel emailed defendant’s attorney on September 3, 2013, notifying him that any objections to the discovery requests had been waived and requesting responses, without objection, by September 6, 2013. Citing health issues, defendant’s attorney requested an extension of time, and plaintiff’s counsel extended the response date to September 11, 2013. When the September 11 deadline passed and no responses had been served, plaintiff’s counsel granted a further extension to September 16, 2013. On September 16, 2013, defendant’s attorney advised plaintiff’s counsel that discovery responses would be forthcoming “in the next couple of days.” No responses were served, and on September 24, 2013, plaintiff filed motions for an order compelling discovery, deeming facts admitted in the unanswered requests for admissions, and imposing sanctions on defendant and his counsel. Neither defendant nor his counsel appeared at the October 31, 2013 hearing at which the trial court granted plaintiff’s motions and ordered that the matters in the requests for admissions be deemed admitted. The court further ordered defendant to serve objection-free responses to the discovery requests within 20 days, and to pay monetary sanctions to plaintiff’s counsel. On January 17, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions and for monetary sanctions based on defendant’s failure to comply with the October 31, 2013