If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents were directed fails to serve a timely response, the responding party waives all objections and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (§§ 2030.290, subds. (a)-(c), 2031.300, subds. (a)-(c).) All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories or request for production was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Weil & Brown, Cal.

Practice Guide, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022), Ch. 8F, § 8:1140, p. 8F- 59, citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.) The moving party is not required to show a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter informally with opposing counsel before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Defendants submit evidence demonstrating that the supplemental discovery requests were properly propounded and timely responses were not served. (Declaration of Madison M. Simmons, ¶¶ 3-4, Exhs. 2-3.) There is no indication in the file that Defendants have previously propounded supplemental interrogatories or requests for production. Thus, Plaintiff shall serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, within 10 calendar days of service of notice of entry of order. (§§ 2030.290, subd. (a)-(b), 2031.300, subd. (a)-(b).)

** at 9:30 a.m. ** American Express National Bank v. Lynn Reclite 25CV000807

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff American Express National Bank moves, pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, for an order entering summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Lynn Reclite or in the alternative for an order entering summary adjudication in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.

“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended . . . that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).) “A plaintiff . . . has met that party’s burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p); see also Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar) [“a plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that ‘each element of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question has been ‘proved,’ and hence that ‘there is no defense’ thereto”].)

Through the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant. The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied its initial burden of producing facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing as to each element of the claim. Defendant failed to file anything in opposition to the motion, and therefore fails to show a triable question of material fact requiring trial in the matter.

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of damages in the amount prayed for through the Complaint ($4,876.75). The Court further finds that items listed on Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, filed January 16, 2026, appear proper on their face. (See (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267 [held: if the items listed in the memorandum of costs appear proper on their face, then the verified statement is prima facie evidence of their propriety].)

Based on the foregoing, the Court will sign the Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment.