Not specified

(Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse: Dept. S27) August 27, 2026 DEPARTMENT S27 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Plaintiff, Jesse Sanchez filed this action against Defendants, Culiacan Appliances and Edwin Rivera for damages arising out of alleged wage and hour violations and other employment claims on 1/21/25.

Plaintiff filed his operative Second Amended Complaint on 8/12/25. He filed proof of service of the summons, complaint, and related papers on Defendants on 9/11/25, and the Clerk, at Plaintiff's request, entered Defendants' defaults on 10/31/25.

The Court heard and OSC re: default packet on 12/10/25, at which time it indicated it had received the default packet and was setting a default prove-up hearing for 1/30/26.

Plaintiff appeared on 1/30/26, but had failed to serve a statement of damages on Defendants, which caused the Court to continue the matter to 3/27/26.

Plaintiff filed declarations re: non-service on 3/27/26, and the Court dismissed the action the same day.

2. Motion to Vacate Dismissal

a. Relief Sought by Plaintiff

On 6/12/26, Plaintiff filed this motion to vacate the dismissal, contending it was entered as a result of his attorney's mistake or excusable neglect in failing to timely assign the matter to a process server and ensure the statements of damages were served prior to the 3/27/26 hearing.

The motion is granted. The dismissal was entered without any statutory or other authority for dismissing the action. CCP Sec.583.420(a)(1) permits the Court to dismiss an action if the summons and complaint are not served within two years after the action is filed. Sec.583.410 also permits the Court to dismiss an action if the case is not brought to trial within two years after filing. There are various other statutes that permit dismissal of an action, none of which apply here.

Pursuant to Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42 Cal.3d 911, 915-917, the Court's powers to dismiss absent a statutory basis are extremely limited, and can only be applied in sham actions or where a delay of less than the statutory period has been prejudicial to the other party. Because the dismissal was entered without statutory or other basis, it is void and the Court vacates the dismissal.

b. Future Hearings

Plaintiff has not, to date, filed proof of service of the statements of damages on Defendants. The Court sets an OSC re: proof of service and default prove-up hearing for September 18, 2026, 8:30 a.m. in Department 28. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV02089 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: S27

1. Parties' Positions

Defendant propounded RPDs, FROGs, SROGs, and RFAs on Plaintiff on 3/20/26. As of the filing of the moving papers, on 7/02/26, and despite a meet and confer letter on 6/22/26, Plaintiff had not served responses. Defendant therefore filed these motions to compel responses to the RPDs, FROGs, and SROGs and to deem RFAs admitted.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff's attorney declares the meet and confer efforts were insufficient and "further" responses have been served, with verifications to come prior to the hearing.

2. Initial not Further

Plaintiff's opposition papers continually refer to the standards relating to motions to compel further, as opposed to initial, responses. Defendant's moving papers establish Plaintiff never served any responses at all to the subject discovery.

Despite Plaintiff referring to his responses as "further" responses, he does not attach the responses and his attorney does not declare that initial responses were ever served. The Court will therefore treat these motions as initial, not further, motions to compel.

Notably, there is no meet and confer requirement when filing a motion to compel initial responses and/or a motion to deem RFAs admitted. Plaintiff's arguments re: the insufficiency of the meet and confer process are therefore rejected.

3. Substantive Responses

To the extent verified responses are not served prior to the hearing, the motions to compel will be granted and the RFAs will be deemed admitted. If responses are served, the motions will be deemed substantively moot. If the parties submit on the tentative, the motions will be deemed substantively moot.

4. Sanctions

Defendant's notice of motion indicates Defendant seeks imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff and his law firm in the amount of its fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion. Defense Counsel declares fees in the amount of $1720 per motion have been or will be incurred in connection with the motion.

Plaintiff argues sanctions should not be imposed because Plaintiff acted with good cause or substantial justification. CCP Sec.Sec.2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). Plaintiff relies on Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Associates (1996) 46 Cal.App.4 th 1542, 1557-58, Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4 th 1424, 1434, and Do v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4 th 1210, 1213 to support her position.

The Court has previously addressed these arguments, which are repeatedly made by Plaintiff's law firm, and has rejected them. Plaintiff persists in making the arguments. The Court admonishes Plaintiff's attorneys that continuing to make these specious arguments in the future could expose Plaintiff to additional sanctions and/or discipline.

In Lyon, the court of appeals reversed a sanctions order, finding that a party's refusal to turn over discovery documents until after a hearing on a motion for a protective order was substantially justified and made in good faith. In Doe, the court of appeals affirmed a trial court's imposition of sanctions where the defendant persisted in insisting the trial court must review the documents in camera before they would be produced, despite the trial court's admonishment that it would not do so. In Do, the issue was whether an indigent client represented by a pro bono attorney was entitled to fees or not.

Plaintiff's interpretation of the sanctions statute would turn the statute on its head. Defendant propounded discovery, and Plaintiff failed to timely respond due to problems with the meet and confer process, which was not even required. The Court therefore finds imposition of sanctions appropriate.

Defense Counsel declares he bills at the rate of $415/hour. The Court awards one hour to prepare each form discovery motion. The Court awards one hour to prepare reply papers and one hour to appear at the hearing. The Court therefore awards a total of six hours of attorney time at the rate of $415/hour, or $2490 in fees. The Court awards a $60 filing fee in connection with each motion, or $240 in costs.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and his attorney of record, jointly and severally. They are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through its attorney of record, in the total amount of $2730, within twenty days. Defendant is ordered to give notice. | Home -->)" -->