Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV15789, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 




Case Number: 21STCV15789    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

 

HATHAWAY RANCH MUSEUM, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation.

 

                        Plaintiffs,

            v.

MERRIE HATHAWAY, an individual; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,

 

                        Defendants.

  Case No.:        21STCV15789

  Hearing Date: 7/16/24

  Trial Date:       10/29/24

 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

Plaintiff Hathway Ranch Museum’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two); Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,897.50

                                                                                               

Background

 

On April 27, 2021, Plaintiff Hathaway Ranch Museum (“Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff Hathaway Museum”) filed a complaint (“Complaint”) with this Court alleging a single cause of action for conversion against Defendant Merrie Hathaway (“Defendant”) and DOES 1-10 on the grounds that Defendant Merrie Hathaway refused to return property belonging to Plaintiff—family photographs, guest books, silverware, dishes, furniture, maps, and other documents and records—despite Plaintiff’s lack of consent.  (See Complaint, ¶¶ 6-11.)

Plaintiff filed this motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories on June 4, 2024. No opposition has been received, despite a proof of service. A reply was filed on July 9, 2024, proposing that the motion be continued to the date of a companion motion to deem responses to RFAs admitted.

 

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

            Legal Standard

            “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...” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260(a).) The propounding party on a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.270.) If the propounded party does not respond in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

            Sanctions may be awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, which provides:  “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.”

 

            Motion to Compel: CONTINUE TO BE HEARD ON 7/26/24 WITH MOTION TO DEEM RFAs ADMITTED

            Plaintiff moves to compel initial responses to its Form Interrogatories (Set Two).  Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories (Set Two) on November 14, 2023.  (Motion, Mitch Dec., ¶2.)  The only interrogatory propounded was Form Interrogatory 17.1, which asks for information regarding any responses by Defendant to Plaintiff’s RFAs that were anything other than an unqualified admission.  (Motion, Mitch Dec., Ex. 1.)  Defendant failed to respond to both the RFAs and Form Interrogatory 17.1.  Because Defendant’s obligation to respond to Form Interrogatory 17.1 is dependent on her responses to the RFAs, this motion to compel response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 is continued to July 26, 2024, so that it may be heard with Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs admitted against Defendant Merrie.  If the Court grants the motion to deem RFAs admitted, this motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 will be moot, as all RFAs would have been deemed admitted against Merrie. 

 

Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s motion is continued to July 26, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. No appearances are needed on July 16, 2024.