Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV27360, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27360    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On November 7, 2023, Petitioner Samuel Moore (Petitioner) filed a petition against Respondent North Light Specialty Insurance Company (Respondent) to enforce discovery under Insurance Code section 11580.2(f)(1).

Petitioner moves to compel Respondent’s response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. Petitioner asserts that he served the discovery on July 5, 2023. (Vardanyan Decl. ¶ 2.) No extension was requested or offered. On August 31, 2023, Petitioner’s counsel contacted Respondent to inquire about the discovery. (Id. ¶ 3.) No response was received. Since then, Petitioner has not received any responses. (Id. ¶ 4.) Petitioner also seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he uninsured motorist law grants the superior court the exclusive jurisdiction to hear discovery matters arising under uninsured motorist arbitrations.” (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 926.) In uninsured motorist arbitrations, discovery may be commenced both before and after the commencement of arbitration. (Id. at 923.)

Insurance Code section 11580.2 does not provide any manner for the service of a petition. However, “Section 1290.4, subdivision (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure does set forth service requirements for a “petition” under the contractual arbitration law.” (Id. at 928.) Under section 1290.4, a copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing and any other papers upon which the petition is based must be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4(a).)  If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner for service, then section 1290.4 requires that service be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.  (Id., § 1290.4(b).) 

Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

If a motion to compel responses is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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., §§ 2030.290 (c).) Further, “[t]he 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).)

Requests for Production

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300, if a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Pro § 2031.300 (b).) The party who fails to serve a timely response to a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand unless the court finds that the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance or party’s failure was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (a)(1)- (2).)

Courts shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 (c).) Further, “[t]he 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).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Petitioner filed this petition under Insurance Code section 11580.2, which does not provide any manner for service. Petitioner has not included a copy of the arbitration agreement to determine if a manner of service was specified there. To this extent, Petitioner was required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4(b) to serve the petition on Respondent in the manner provided for the service of summons by law. Here, the Petition to Enforce Discovery does not have a proof of service attached. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction at this time to hear the discovery matter.    

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to compel response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, is DENIED.

Petitioner to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.