COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

24CV000748: COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 12/04/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery Requests, Establish Admissions in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

24CV000748: COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 12/04/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery Requests, Establish Admissions in Department 53

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Jessica Carbajal’s unopposed motion to compel and to deem matters admitted is granted as set forth below.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff Beverly Cobb’s responses to her form and special interrogatories, requests for production (sets one) and also seeks an order deeming the matters in her requests for admission admitted on the basis that Plaintiff never responded to the requests.

No opposition to the motion was filed. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Interrogatories and Requests for production

The motion is granted.

No later than December 18, 2024, Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s form and special interrogatories, and requests for production (sets one).

Defendant’s request for sanctions in connection with the motion to compel responses is denied as the motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.)

Requests for Admission

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and the matters at issue are deemed admitted, unless Plaintiff Beverly Cobb serves, “before the hearing on the motion,” proposed responses to the subject request for admissions served on May 28, 2024, that are in substantial compliance with

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV000748: COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 12/04/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Discovery Requests, Establish Admissions in Department 53

CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Defendant’s request for mandatory monetary sanctions is connection with the motion to deem matters admitted is granted. CCP § 2033.280(c) provides that it “is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” The Court has no discretion in this regard, for example, like it does in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories, where it can decline to impose sanctions where it would be unjust.

Plaintiff Beverly Cobb shall pay to Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $760 ($350/hr x 2 hr +$60 filing fee). The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before January 4, 2025. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [“monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws”].)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.