Y.A. v. Alma A. Medina-Figueroa, et al

Case Number

24CV03490

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/26/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel (2); Motions re Sanctions (2)

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Y.A.: Sebastian M. Medvei, Medvei Law Group, APC

For Defendants and Cross-Complainants Alma A. Medina-Figueroa and Multiservice Santa Barbara, LLC: Russell Brown, RBX Law

                       

RULING

For the reasons set forth below:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendants Alma A. Medina-Figueroa and Multiservice Santa Barbara, LLC to produce documents pursuant to statement of compliance, and request for sanctions, is granted.
   1. Defendants shall produce all responsive documents to requests for production of documents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 no later than December 17, 2025.
   2. Total monetary sanctions, for both motions, are imposed against Defendants and their attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $850.00, payable to counsel for Plaintiff no later than December 17, 2025.
2. Plaintiff’s motions for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, a further compliance order and monetary sanctions is granted as follows:
   1. Defendants shall serve a further code-compliant response, without objections, to special interrogatory No. 5 no later than December 17, 2025.
   2. Defendants shall serve further code-compliant responses, without objections, to requests for production of documents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 no later than December 17, 2025. The further responses shall state that Defendants will produce all responsive documents.
   3.  Total monetary sanctions, for both motions, are imposed against Defendants and their attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,120.00, payable to counsel for Plaintiff no later than December 17, 2025.

Background

This action commenced on June 21, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff and cross-Defendant Y.A. (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants Alma A. Medina-Figueroa (“Medina-Figueroa”) and Multiservice Santa Barbara, LLC. (“MSB”; collectively “Defendants”) for violation of the Immigration Consultants Act.

As alleged in the complaint:

“Defendant Medina-Figueroa is the principal and primary operator and controller of Defendant Medina LLC. Defendant Medina is not a licensed attorney. On information and belief, Defendant Medina LLC is undercapitalized and does not operate legal formalities for limited liability companies such that Defendant Medina LLC is merely a judgment proof vehicle for Defendant Medina-Figueroa to engage in tortious activity, and as such, Defendant Medina LLC is the alter ego of Defendant Medina-Figueroa.” (Compl., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff consulted with, and retained, Medina-Figueroa to assist with an immigration matter. (Compl., ¶ 9.) Medina-Figueroa advised Plaintiff that Plaintiff could obtain legal immigration status, in the form of lawful permanent residency, if her husband obtained citizenship. (Ibid.) Medina-Figueroa explicitly indicated that she could prepare the necessary documents for Plaintiff, which constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. (Ibid.) Plaintiff paid Medina-Figueroa “at least $2,800” to obtain citizenship for Plaintiff’s husband and permanent residency for Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

After consulting with Medina-Figueroa, and making payment, Plaintiff discovered that Medina-Figueroa had not taken any action on Plaintiff’s case. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Upon inquiry by Plaintiff, Medina-Figueroa advised that upon further review of Plaintiff’s case, immigration background, and eligibility, she was not sure whether Plaintiff was eligible for permanent residency status. (Ibid.) Plaintiff requested the return of the money and documents, but Medina-Figueroa refused. (Ibid.)

Defendants answered the complaint on July 29, 2024, asserting a general denial and 20 affirmative defenses.

On June 18, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses, from each Defendant, to special interrogatories, as well as further responses to requests for production of documents. Defendants were given a deadline of July 2, 2025, to provide code compliant responses. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions was denied as to each of the motions.

Plaintiff represents that following several extensions that were granted to Defendants to provide the responses as ordered, on September 8, 2025, Defendants served non-code-compliant responses, with unmeritorious objections. As part of the non-compliant responses, Defendants did agree to produce certain documents by September 12, 2025, but failed to do so.

Plaintiff now seeks to compel Defendants to produce the documents that Defendants represented would be provided by September 12, 2025, and requests monetary sanctions. Plaintiff also seeks terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, a further compliance order and monetary sanctions. The discovery requests at issue in the motions is identical for each of the Defendants.

Defendants have not filed opposition or any other response to the motions.

Analysis

Production of Documents

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 requires: “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320. subd. (a).)

Here, on September 8, 2025, both Defendants served second amended responses to the RFPs. By way of the responses, Defendants each stated that they would provide certain documents in response to requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 by September 12, 2025. Defendants will be ordered to comply with their representations.

“Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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 compliance with a demand, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).)

“The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the total amount of $2,310.00 for each of the motions to compel compliance, for a combined total of $4,620.00. Pursuant to Plaintiff counsel’s declaration, he spent one hour drafting each motion and anticipates an additional two hours drafting a reply and appearing remotely at the hearing, as well as a $60 filing fee for each motion. Counsel seeks to be awarded an hourly rate of $750.00.

The Court does not find that Defendants acted with substantial justification in failing to produce the documents that they represented would be produced, and sanctions will be imposed. However, the two motions are for all intents identical and not at all complicated. Each of the motions consisted of eight short paragraphs accompanied by a nine paragraph declaration. Further, there was no opposition and therefore no need to prepare a reply. Plaintiff will be awarded attorney’s fees for 1.5 hours of legal work associated with the two motions, at $500 per hour, and filing fees of $60 for each motion. The total amount of sanctions, combined, is therefore $850.00.

Terminating Sanctions

(Note: Despite Plaintiff’s oft repeated statement that the Defendants were “ordered to provide a code-compliant response without objection,” (italics added) that is not exactly what was ordered. On June 18, 2025, Defendants were simply ordered to provide code-compliant responses.)

The two motions for terminating sanctions from Defendants are also identical. The motions are based on arguments that Defendants’ responses were not in compliance with the Court’s June 18, 2025 order to provide code-compliant responses. The responses in dispute are one special interrogatory and the same requests for production of documents that are addressed above.

Special Interrogatory No. 5 requires Defendants to: “Identify, by providing the name and last known address, telephone number, and email address, each person to whom YOU have provided immigration services.”

Defendants’ post-order responses to Special Interrogatory No. 5 is: “Defendant objects on the ground that this request is overly broad and is thus unduly burdensome and harassing. Defendant objects on the grounds that this request contains subparts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060. Without waiving that objection, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.210 and 2030.230, Defendant exercises the option to produce writings. Defendant will produce client files containing information responsive to this request by September 12, 2025.”

Plaintiff argues that the response is non-compliant in that the objections are meritless, the election to produce documents in lieu of responding is untimely because it was not made in the original response, and the election to produce documents is non-compliant in that it does not identify the documents with specificity as required. The Court overrules Defendants’ objections and agrees that the response is not code compliant. Defendants will each be ordered to provide further, code-compliant, responses without objection.

As to the requests for production of documents: Defendants objected that the requests are overly broad, and thus unduly burdensome, and harassing. Those objections are meritless and are overruled. Having overruled the objections, the responses indicate that responsive documents will be produced. The production of those documents is addressed above, making the motion for another order of compliance moot. However, Defendants will be ordered to file amended responses that remove the objections and state, unambiguously, that Defendant will produce all responsive documents.

As Defendants’ responses were not in full compliance with the Court’s June 18, 2025 order, Defendants are subject to sanctions to compensate Plaintiff for the necessity of the motions.

Sanctions available for disobeying a Court order to provide discovery responses include: (1) Monetary sanctions; (2) Issue sanctions; (3) Evidence sanctions; (4) Terminating sanctions; and (5) Contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)

If a party “fails to obey an order compelling further responses to interrogatories, the Court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

If a party “fails to obey [an] order compelling a response [to a demand for production of documents], the Court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

“If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

“A Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty” for a party’s refusal to obey a discovery order. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

“The trial Court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’ [Citation.]” (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702.)

“A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial Court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279–280.)

Here, it would be premature to impose terminating sanctions. Until this ruling, no monetary sanctions have been imposed on Defendants. That is the first step in the incremental approach contemplated by the relevant legal authorities.

Plaintiff seeks a total of $3,060, for each of the two motions, be imposed as sanctions, based on an hourly rate of $750 for 2 hours spent drafting each of the motions and separate statements, anticipated 4 additional hours for preparing a reply and attending the hearing, and a $60 filing fee for each motion. Plaintiffs will be awarded sanctions for a total of 2 hours, for both of the motions combined, at $500 per hour and $60 for the filing fee for each motion, for a total sanctions award of $1,120.00.

Plaintiff’s request that the Court set an order to show cause re terminating sanctions, without further notice to Defendants, should Defendants fail to comply with the order, will be denied.