Tentative Ruling: Cal Real North LP vs Chris D Chiarappa et al
Case Number
23CV04547
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 05/11/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
CMC; Motion: Admissions; Motion: Compel Responses to Form Interrogs Set Two as to Jeffrey Lauer
Tentative Ruling
Cal Real North, L.P. v. Chris D. Chiarappa, et al.
Case No. 23CV04547
Hearing Date: May 11, 2026
HEARING: 1. Motion of Plaintiff Cal Real North, L.P. for an Order that the Truth of the Matters in Requests for Admissions, Set Two, served on Defendant Jeffrey Lauer, be Deemed Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions
2. Motion of Plaintiff Cal Real North, L.P. to Compel Defendant Jeffrey Lauer to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two; Request for Monetary Sanctions
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Cal Real North, L.P.: Jonathan C. Sandler, Lucas Garcia, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP
For Defendant Jeffrey Lauer: Self Represented
For Defendant The Landing SB, LLC p/k/a 54thSt Partners: Michael S. Fauver, Natalie N. Mutz, Fauver Large Archbald & Spray LLP
TENTATIVE RULING:
- Should Jeffrey Lauer fail to file and serve a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, before the hearing on this motion, the motion for order that the truth of the matters in the requests for admissions, set two, be admitted, is granted and requests for admission Nos. 33 through 53 are deemed admitted.
- Monetary Sanctions are awarded in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Jeffrey Lauer in the amount of $500.00, payable to counsel for plaintiff no later than June 1, 2026.
- Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Jeffrey Lauer to provide responses to form interrogatories, set two, is granted.
- Jeffrey Lauer shall serve verified responses to form interrogatories, set two, without objections, no later than May 26, 2026.
- Monetary Sanctions are awarded in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Jeffrey Lauer in the amount of $500.00, payable to counsel for plaintiff no later than June 1, 2026.
Background:
This action commenced on October 16, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Cal Real North, L.P. (plaintiff) against defendants Chris D. Chiarappa (Chiarappa), Jeffrey Lauer (Lauer), and 54th St Partners, LLC (54 St Partners) n/k/a The Landing SB, LLC (The Landing) (collectively the “defendants”) for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Guaranty; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; (5) Fraud in the Inducement; and (6) Declaratory Relief.
As alleged in the complaint:
54 St Partners entered into a lease agreement with plaintiff for a commercial space in order to open “a unique dining & bar experience featuring excellent service and contemporary cuisine.” (Compl., ¶ 2.) Chiarappa and Lauer, the sole members of 54 St Partners, each personally guaranteed the lease in a guaranty agreement that Chiarappa and Lauer both executed. (Ibid.)
The defendants convinced plaintiff that defendants had the financial means and business acumen to improve plaintiff’s shopping center by increasing foot traffic, profits, and customer satisfaction. (Compl., ¶ 3.)
Defendants did not have a sufficient plan to fulfill the promises that they had made to plaintiff, and either knew or should have known that they were incapable of opening the restaurant and bar. (Compl., ¶ 4.) Instead of admitting to plaintiff that they were financially incapable of proceeding with their plan, defendants allowed plaintiff to expend money in furtherance of defendants’ lease. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
Defendants misrepresented their financials and told plaintiff exactly what they knew it would take to make plaintiff continue to improve the shopping center. (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 6.)
Years after the parties had entered into the lease, defendants finally admitted that they were incapable of opening the restaurant. (Compl., ¶ 7.) The admission came long after plaintiff had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars renovating both defendants’ lease space per the contract with defendants and the adjacent space leased by another entity that was owned or controlled by Chiarappa, in reliance on the representations of defendants. (Ibid.) The admission also came long after defendants became obligated to pay rent, which they have not paid. (Ibid.)
Defendants have since surrendered the space, allowing plaintiff to attempt mitigation of its damages, but plaintiff is still suffering extensive damages. (Compl., ¶ 8.)
On December 15, 2023, Chiarappa and The Landing answered the complaint with a general denial and 27 affirmative defenses.
On May 8, 2024, Lauer answered the complaint with a general denial and 27 affirmative defenses.
Relevant to the present motions: On November 22, 2024, Lauer filed a substitution of attorney, became self-represented, and listed his current address as 6322 W Oriole Ave, Visalia, CA 93291. Lauer has not filed any notification of change of address since the substitution of attorney.
On August 22, 2025, plaintiff and Chiarappa filed a stipulation and order for dismissal of action, against Chiarappa, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
On January 15, 2026, plaintiff filed the present motion establishing that requests for admissions served on Lauer be deemed admitted, and for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff properly served the motion on Lauer, via mail, at Lauer's listed address, on January 15, 2026.
Also on January 15, 2026, plaintiff filed the present motion to compel Lauer to provide responses to form interrogatories, set two, and for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff also properly served Lauer with this motion.
Lauer has not filed opposition or any other response to the motions.
Analysis:
Self-Representation
As noted above, Lauer is now self-represented. It is worth noting:
“[M]ere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. [Citation.] . . . A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)
Discovery
“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, [and] must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)
Requests for Admission
Plaintiff seeks to have admitted the requests for admission, set two, that Lauer has not responded to. The requests are Nos. 33 through 53.
RFAs “differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery. Rather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof.” (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.)
Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.010 provides, in pertinent part: “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”
“The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subds. (a-b).
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
“(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
On November 7, 2025, plaintiff served requests for admissions, set two, on Lauer via mail at his address that was disclosed to the court. (Garcia decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) Lauer's responses were due December 12, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
On December 17, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter to Lauer regarding Lauer’s failure to provide responses and requested that Lauer provide a response. (Garcia decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. B.)
On December 18, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel received an email response to the letter stating that Lauer had moved and had not received any discovery requests. (Garcia decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded by informing Lauer that he had not updated his address for service with the court and had a duty to do so. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel then provided Lauer with emailed copies of the discovery and provided Lauer with an additional two weeks to respond. (Ibid.)
Lauer has not yet filed responses. (Garcia decl., ¶ 7.)
As sanctions are mandatory, plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions will be granted. However, this was a simple motion, and the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to one-hour of time at plaintiff counsel’s stated rate of $500.00 per hour.
Form Interrogatories
Plaintiff seeks responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 1.1, which seeks information regarding the identity of persons who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to interrogatories, and 17.1, which seeks information regarding each response to a request for admission that is not an unqualified admission.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”
“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
On November 7, 2025, plaintiff served form interrogatories, set two, on Lauer via mail at his address that was disclosed to the court. (Garcia decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) Lauer's responses were due December 12, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
On December 17, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter to Lauer regarding Lauer’s failure to provide responses and requested that Lauer provide a response. (Garcia decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. B.)
On December 18, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel received an email response to the letter stating that Lauer had moved and had not received any discovery requests. (Garcia decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded by informing Lauer that he had not updated his address for service with the court and had a duty to do so. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel then provided Lauer with emailed copies of the discovery and provided Lauer with an additional two weeks to respond. (Ibid.)
Lauer has not yet filed responses. (Garcia decl., ¶ 7.)
Lauer will be ordered to serve responses to the form interrogatories, set two, Nos. 1.1 and 17.1, without objection, no later than May 26, 2026.
Lauer’s failure to provide responses was without justification and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. As such, plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions will be granted. However, this was a simple motion, and the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to one-hour of time at plaintiff counsel’s stated rate of $500.00 per hour.