Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Nathaniel Villareal

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING

LINE 7 25CV469820 Ying Wang v. The John Stuart Co.; HomeFirst Motion of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara Services of Santa Clara County; Betty Ann County to Compel Plaintiff Ying Wang To Provide Further Gardens Leasing Office; Joanna Flores Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions.

The motion of Motion of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County to Compel Plaintiff Ying Wang To Provide Further Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to submit code compliant responses within 20 days of the filing and service of this order. The request of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County monetary sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a special motion for sanctions. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”

LINE 8 25CV477397 Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Nathaniel Motion of Plaintiff Farmers Insurance Exchange to Villareal Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Stories, Set One, And for Monetary Sanctions.

The motion of Motion of Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange to Compel Plaintiff Nathaniel Villareal To Provide answers to Special Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Objections are waived. Plaintiff is to submit code compliant responses within 20 days of the filing and service of this order. The request of Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange for monetary sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a special motion for sanctions. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”

Calendar Line 8 Superior Court, State Of California County Of Santa Clara Department 1

161 North First Street, San Jose, Ca 95113 408.882.2330 Department21@scscourt.org http://www.scscourt.org (For Clerk's Use Only)

Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian is covering for Judge Eunice Lee on 30 June and on 02 July 2026

Case No.: 25CV469820 Nathaniel Villareal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Date: 30 June 2026 9:00 am Line Number: 06

----oooOooo---

Motion of Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange to Compel Plaintiff Nathaniel Villareal to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions. Defendant did not file opposition to this motion.

I. Statement of Facts. This underinsured motorist case stems from a 12 September 2022, motor-vehicle incident that occurred in Santa Clara County between the plaintiff Nathaniel Villarreal and Omar Gonzalez. The Court has carefully reviewed the moving papers in support of the moving papers.

II. Discussion. In this case, Defendants propounded Special Interrogatories upon Plaintiff to learn more about the nature and extent of plaintiff’s claims in this action, which information is relevant to this uninsured motorist action. California courts have taken a liberal approach to permissible discovery, which has led the courts to resolve any doubt in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

A. Motion to Compel Responses to interrogatories. California Code of Civil Procedure, § 2017.010 provides that a party may obtain discovery regarding matters relevant to the pending action. “A defendant may propound interrogatories to a party to the action without leave of court at any time.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.020(a).) If a party fails to respond to discovery, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers to the interrogatories. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.290(b).) This Court finds that Defendant has shown that the set of interrogatories The moving party is required to show that the set of special interrogatories was properly, the time to respond has expired, and no response of any kind was served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Defendant is not required to attempt to resolve a discovery dispute informally, where no response was served within the statutory time limit. (Leach v. Superior Court, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at p. 906.)

B. Request of Defendant for Monetary Sanctions. Defendant makes a request for monetary sanctions. The request is not code-compliant. Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states, in part: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”

A party filing a discovery motion cannot recover sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), 2031.320(b) and 2033.290(d) where no opposition was filed, because the responding party did not “. . . unsuccessfully make[] or oppose[]. . .” the motions. In fact, this Court often suspects that a clever responding party might deliberately choose not to file opposition for the above reason.

Since no opposition was filed, the correct citation of authority would have been California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) which states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

In the future, counsel would be advised to add the following language in the notice of motion and in the memorandum of points and authorities: "If you wish to oppose the relief requested in this motion, you must timely file a written reply in compliance with all Court rules. If you fail to do so, the court may treat your failure to respond as a waiver of your right to oppose this motion and may grant the relief requested pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a)."

III. Conclusion and Order. The motion of Motion of Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange to Compel Plaintiff Nathaniel Villareal To Provide answers to Special Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Objections are waived. Plaintiff is to submit code compliant responses within 20 days of the filing and service of this order. The request of Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange for monetary sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a special motion for sanctions.

___________________________ ____________________________________________ DATED: HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County Of Santa Clara

---oooOooo---