Tentative Ruling: Dimitra Hearron et al vs Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation
Case Number
24CV00660
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 03/23/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motions for Admissions (3)
Tentative Ruling
Dimitra Hearron, et al. v. Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation
Case No. 24CV00660
Hearing Date: March 23, 2026
HEARING: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Have Requests for Admission, Set Two, to Plaintiff Zayden Ramirez Deemed Admitted.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Have Requests for Admission, Set Two, to Plaintiff Dimitra Hearron Deemed Admitted.
3. Defendant’s Motion to Have Requests for Admission, Set Three, to Plaintiff Sierra Hearron Deemed Admitted.
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiffs Dimitra Hearron, Sierra Hearron, and Zayden Ramirez: Self- Represented
For Defendant Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation: Marc A. Trachtman, Donald S. Zalewski, Marc Trachtman Law, PC
TENTATIVE RULING:
The motions to have requests for admission deemed admitted will be granted if plaintiffs Zayden Ramirez, Dimitra Hearron, and Sierra Hearron fail to provide responses prior to the hearing on this matter.
Monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation and against plaintiffs as follows: (1) Zayden Ramirez is sanctioned $460.00, (2) Dimitra Hearron is sanctioned $460.00, and (3) Sierra Hearron is sanctioned $460.00. The sanctions are payable, from each plaintiff to counsel of record for Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation, Marc Trachtman Law, PC no later than May 29, 2026.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service no later than March 27, 2026.
Background:
The first amended complaint (the FAC) filed on April 23, 2024, by plaintiffs Dimitra Hearron (Dimitra), Sierra Hearron (Sierra), and Zayden Ramirez (Zayden), a minor by and through Sierra, his guardian ad litem (collectively, Plaintiffs) is the operative pleading. (Note: The court refers to plaintiffs by their first names to avoid confusion due to common surnames. No disrespect is intended.) The FAC alleges four causes of action against defendant Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation (SBCHC): (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) negligence; (3) nuisance; and (4) violations of Civil Code section 1942.4. As alleged in the operative FAC:
SBCHC owns, operates, manages, maintains, and supervises residential property located at 47 Broadmoor in Santa Barbara, California (the Property), which is held out for rent to the general public. (FAC, ¶¶ 1, 8-9 & 12.) On June 11, 2004, Dimitra entered into an agreement with SBCHC (the Agreement) to lease Apt. #7 (the Unit) at the Property. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 18.) Plaintiffs have been tenants at the Property and the Unit since June 2004. (Id. at ¶¶ 5 & 18.)
There exist at the Property, including in its common areas and in the Unit, conditions which affected its habitability, and which were not caused by any wrongful or abnormal use of the Unit or Property by Plaintiffs. (FAC, ¶ 21.) These conditions include: cockroach and insect infestations and lack of insect control; pollution from roach feces floating in the air and being inhaled by Plaintiffs; bites from spiders and other insects; damaged or deteriorated carpeting; inoperable stoves, ovens, heating, and smoke alarms; broken kitchen cabinets, tiles, or flooring; water leaks or intrusion, excessive moisture, and water damage; toxic mold causing mold spores to float in the air and be inhaled by Plaintiffs; deteriorated window frames and walls; an unpermitted water heater; and building code and health and safety violations. (FAC, ¶¶ 14, 21, & 41.) Some of those conditions caused Plaintiffs to suffer serious health and medical problems. (FAC, ¶ 14(b)-(c) [roach feces and spider bites] & (m) [toxic mold].)
On March 24, 2023, the City of Santa Barbara Building and Safety Department notified SBCHC of violations of health and safety codes or housing laws. (FAC, ¶¶ 15, 44 & Exh. A [“Notice Of Violation Warning Letter” dated Mar. 24, 2023].) SBCHC failed to make repairs or abate the conditions for a period of more than 35 days after service of citations upon it and thereafter, demanded, attempted to collect, and collected rent from Plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶¶ 34, 45-46.)
The conduct of SBCHC and its failure to make repairs created conditions which interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of the Unit and Property, and caused Plaintiffs to suffer property damage, physical and emotional injuries, pain and suffering, and to incur medical and related expenses. (FAC, ¶¶ 16, 31-32, 34, 37.)
On August 8, 2024, SBCHC filed an answer to the FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting forty one affirmative defenses, and a cross-complaint against fictitiously named “Roe” defendants 1 through 30, alleging causes of action for equitable or implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief against those defendants.
Court records reflect that on May 28, 2025, then counsel of record for Plaintiffs, Gerald S. Ohn (attorney Ohn), filed a motion for an order permitting counsel to be relieved as Plaintiffs’ attorney of record in this action, and filed an amended motion to be relieved as counsel on May 30 (collectively, the motion to be relieved).
On August 25, the court granted the motion to be relieved and signed and entered separate orders relieving attorney Ohn as counsel of record for Dimitra, Sierra, and Zayden, effective upon the filing of proof of service of each signed order upon each client. (Aug. 8, 2025, Minute Order & Orders Granting Motion.) On August 27, attorney Ohn filed proof of service of each of those orders on Plaintiffs.
On November 13, SBCHC filed a motion for an order granting summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication against Plaintiffs as to all causes of action alleged in the FAC.
On February 23, 2025, the court granted the motion for summary adjudication in favor of SBCHC and against Zayden as to the first cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and in favor of SBCHC against plaintiffs as to the fourth cause of action for violations of Civil Code section 1942.4. The motion was otherwise denied.
On December 10, 2025, SBCHC filed the present three motions to have requests for admission deemed admitted. The motions were timely served on plaintiffs via mail.
Plaintiffs have not filed opposition or any other response to the motions.
Analysis:
According to the declaration of SBCHC’s counsel:
(1) On November 4, 2025, SBCHC propounded Requests for Admission, Set Two, to Zayden; (2) On October 30, 2025, SBCHC propounded Requests for Admission, Set Two, to Dimitra, and (3) On November 4, 2025, SBCHC propounded Requests for Admission, Set Three, to Sierra. (Zalewski Decls. ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) The requests pertain primarily to liability and evidentiary issues. To date no responses have been served to any of the requests. SBCHC now moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, for an order deeming the requests admitted.
“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.)
Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, the court must order the requests admitted if plaintiffs do not file responses prior to the hearing on the three motions.
Monetary Sanctions
SBCHC seeks sanctions of $1020.00 for each of the three motions. By way of declaration, counsel for SBCHC declares that he spent 2.3 hours on each motion, anticipates another hour reviewing opposition and preparing a reply, and incurred a filing fee of $60.00 for each motion. Counsel also anticipates that the hearing on the motions will require 1.5 hours of time. The hourly rate requested is $200.00.
Sanctions are mandatory pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c). However, the court finds that the amount of time necessary for the motions would be minimal. The three motions are virtually identical, and they are by no means complex. SBCHC will be awarded their reasonable attorney’s fees and filing fee of $460.00 for each motion.