THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. MARIVIC BUSTOS

September 11, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 7/UD Line 2 26-UDL-00894 THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY VS. MARIVIC BUSTOS

THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY MERCEDES A. GAVIN MARIVIC BUSTOS PRO SE

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to Deem Admitted Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, and Request for Sanctions Against Defendant in the Amount of $585.00

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff The John Stewart Company’s motion to compel responses to General Form Interrogatories (Set One), Unlawful Detainer Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to deem unanswered requests admitted in its Requests for Admission (Set One) is also GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for $585.00 in sanctions against Defendant Marivic Bustos is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

On August 3, 2026, Plaintiff served its General Form Interrogatories (Set One), Unlawful Detainer Form Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One) on Defendant, via overnight mail. (Gavin Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.)

Defendant’s responses were due on August 11, 2026. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (b), 2031.260, subd. (b), and 2033.250, subd.(b) [providing five days to respond to discovery requests in unlawful detainer actions]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1013 [extending response time by two court days for service by overnight mail].) Defendant failed to serve responses by the deadline and still had not responded when Plaintiff filed this motion on August 25, 2026. (Gavin Decl., ¶ 7.)

a) Motion to Compel Responses

If a party to whom interrogatories and requests for production of documents are directed fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.2900, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Here, Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery demands by the statutory deadline.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s General Form Interrogatories (Set One), Unlawful Detainer Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents

September 11, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ (Set One) is GRANTED.

Defendant shall serve responses within five (5) days of notice of entry of this order.

b) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may seek and order that “the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff seeks an order deeming the following matters from Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One) admitted:

1. Plaintiff The John Stewart Company is the authorized property manager who has authorization to sue and take the premises located at 415 Gateway Drive #38, Pacifica, CA 94044 back in its own name.

2. The current monthly rent for the premises located at 415 Gateway Drive #38, Pacifica, CA 94044 is $1,249.00 per month.

3. On May 12, 2026, Plaintiff caused Defendant to be served a Notice to Pay Rent or Quit by posting a copy of the notice to Defendant at the premises and by mailing a copy to Defendant at the premises.

4. On June 11, 2026, the period stated in the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit expired at the end of the day.

5. You did not make payment in full to Plaintiff as required by the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit on or before June 11, 2026.

6. As of May 12, 2026, you owed Plaintiff at least $3,747.00 in rent for the premises located at 415 Gateway Drive #38, Pacifica, CA 94044.

7. You failed to pay your monthly rent in full for the month of March 2026.

8. You failed to pay your monthly rent in full for the month of April 2026.

9. You failed to pay your monthly rent in full for the month of May 2026.

10. Defendant has never made a request for reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff regarding Defendant's disability.

(Gavin Decl., Ex. 4, RFA, Set One.)

Plaintiff’s motion to deem Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One) admitted is GRANTED.

September 11, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ c) Sanctions

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party . . . who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel” a response to a discovery request, “unless it finds that that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Similarly, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party . . . whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitate[s] a motion” to deem the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c.).)

Sanctions imposed by the Court for failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery may include the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the opposing party as a result of the failure to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $585.00, which includes attorney’s fees for 1.5 hours of work performed in bringing this motion, at a rate of $350.00 per hour, and $60 for the cost of filing this motion. (Gavin Decl., ¶¶ 8-10.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s request for sanctions reasonable.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $585.00 is GRANTED.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.