CenterPoint Development Group Inc vs Gwendolyn Campbell

Case Number

24CV00306

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 06/25/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel (4)

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff by Jason Wansor

Defendant by Bruce Rudman

Attorneys for Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Hudson Insurance Company: Clark H. Cameron, Neil H. Berger, Kenneth S. Humphrey.

Attorneys for Cross-Defendant SureTec Insurance Company: Christian J. Gascou, Ronald W. Hopkins.  

Attorneys for Cross-Defendants CenterPoint and Anthony Moores: Paul W. Smigliani.

RULING

The motion for an order deeming admitted the truth of matters set forth in requests for admission is GRANTED.

As for the motions to compel responses (as distinguished from the motion for an order deeming admitted the truth of matters set forth in requests for admission), the Court order Defendants to serve responses, without objection, no later than July 15, 2025.

Sanctions are awarded jointly against counsel and Defendant as requested but in the amount of a total of $2,250 which represents one hour for each of the four motions (4 x $450 = $1,800) plus one hour to attend the hearing (1 x $450 = $450) to be paid no later than July 15, 2025.

The Trial Date is 11/19/25, at 11:30am [all trial documents due one week in advance]; the MSC is 10/10/25 at 8:30am in Dept. 5 via Zoom. The final CMC is 10/22/25 at 8:30am.

There is a Cross-Complaint of Center Point filed 3/7/25 against MARK W GARCIA DBA M W GARCIA COMPANY, DEL CAMPO PLASTERING INC., COASTLINE CONSTRUCTION AND CONCRETE INC., C J WARME INC. DBA TOTALLY WIRED ELECTRIC but there is no Proof of Service, and that Cross-Complaint is bifurcated for trial.

Analysis

Plaintiff Center Point Development Group, a contractor, brings this action for breach of contract, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, and related claims arising out of a significant residential renovation project in Montecito. The Defendant homeowner, Gwendolyn Campbell, has filed a cross-complaint.

Plaintiff filed three motions to compel relating to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests to produce after Defendant failed to provide any responses. Plaintiff also requested monetary sanctions in connection with each motion. The motions were originally scheduled to be heard on January 15, 2025.

Defendant’s counsel submitted a “limited” opposition on January 2, 2025, stating that his client had been ill and was unable to assist with the preparation of the responses. A letter from the Defendant’s physician, Michael F. Cantwell, M.D., MPH, was attached to the opposition and indicated that Defendant suffers from a rare, life-threatening endocrine disorder.

On January 15, 2025, the Court issued an order continuing the three motions to March 26, 2025, based on the Defendant’s illness and her then inability to participate in responding to discovery. Meanwhile, a fourth discovery motion -- a motion to deem admitted the truth of matters set forth in requests for admission -- was filed on January 9, 2025.

Defendant’s counsel submitted another declaration on March 14, 2025, stating that his client was still too ill to assist with the preparation of the discovery responses and that he would complete the discovery and serve the responses as soon as his client is medically able to assist with their preparation, Defendant’s counsel also attached a further correspondence from Defendant’s physician, Dr. Cantwell, stating, in relevant part: “I most recently evaluated Ms. Campbell on March 12, 2025, and feel that her medical condition remains unstable enough that it is significantly affecting her ability to make moderate to complex decisions regarding her healthcare and personal affairs. Her cognitive function, at present, is compromised sufficiently by her unstable medical condition that it is still impairing her capacity to understand and process complex information.”

On March 26, 2025, the Court continued all four pending motions to June 25, 2025, stating: “There is no option but to embrace the suggestion of counsel.” The Court’s minute order also stated that the Court “anticipates setting new Trial dates and MSC dates on 6/25/25.”

As of this writing no party has submitted anything further in connection with the pending motions following the Court’s March 26, 2025, order continuing the four motions to June 25, 2025. The matter should therefore proceed unless there is new information.

Each of the four motions should be granted.

As for the motions to compel responses (as distinguished from the motion for an order deeming admitted the truth of matters set forth in requests for admission), the Court should order Defendant to serve responses, without objection, no later than July 15, 2025.

Sanctions should be awarded as requested but in the amount of a total of $2,250 which represents one hour for each of the four motions (4 x $450 = $1,800) plus one hour to attend the hearing (1 x $450 = $450). Given that no responses or objections were served, each motion to compel was relatively simple and not complex, and no separate statements of items in dispute were required.

Should Defendant’s health continue to prevent her from responding to discovery and otherwise participating in this litigation, then the appointment of a guardian ad litem may be necessary. A guardian ad litem may be appointed for an adult lacking the legal capacity to make decisions only if (i) that adult consents to the appointment or (ii) upon notice and hearing. (In re Jessica G. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1187-1188.)