Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV01319, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV01319 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 05/09/2024 – 8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV01319
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: RODNEY JOSHUA THOMAS JR., an individual; and ANTHONY ERICK ALMAZO,
an individual; v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES
1-10 inclusive
3
TENTATIVE RULINGS – COMPEL RESPONSES
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Rodney Joshua Thomas Jr. and Anthony Erick Almazo, filed a
Complaint on 06/23/2023 alleging three causes of action for: (1) Violation of
Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly
Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Section
1793.2.
MOTION 1 - RELIEF REQUESTED¿
“Plaintiffs, RODNEY JOSHUA THOMAS
JR. AND ANTHONY ERICK ALMAZO (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), will, and hereby do,
move for an order deeming the truth of matters admitted in Plaintiffs’ Requests
for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions were initially
served and propounded on Defendant by Plaintiffs on August 29, 2023.
This Motion is made pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2033.280, subdivision (a), and
2033.280, subdivision (b), on the grounds that Defendant FCA US LLC
(“Defendant”) has failed to provide verified and timely responses to Plaintiffs’
Requests for Admissions, which seek information directly relevant and material
to their claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Thus, Plaintiffs
seek an order deeming the truth of matters admitted, within 10 calendar days of
the Court’s order.”
(Pl. Mot. p. 2.)
MOTION 2 – RELIEF REQUESTED
“Plaintiffs, RODNEY JOSHUA THOMAS
JR. and ANTHONY ERICK ALMAZO (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), will, and hereby do,
move for an order to compel responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’
Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”). Plaintiffs’ Requests
for Production of Documents, Set One, was initially served and propounded on
Defendant by Plaintiffs on August 29, 2023.
This Motion is made pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2033.280, 2023.010, and 2023.030
on the basis that Plaintiffs properly served upon Defendant, Requests for
Production of Documents, Set One, and Defendant has failed to serve timely
responses. Plaintiffs’ RFPs seek information directly relevant and material to
their claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Thus, Plaintiffs
seek an order compelling Defendant to produce responses, without objections,
within 10 calendar days of the Court’s order.”
(Pl. Mot. p. 2.)
MOTION 3 – RELIEF REQUESTED
“Plaintiffs, RODNEY JOSHUA THOMAS JR. and ANTHONY ERICK ALMAZO (hereinafter
“Plaintiffs”), will, and hereby do, move for an order to compel responses,
without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One
(“Interrogatories”). Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories were initially served and
propounded on Defendant by Plaintiffs on August 29, 2023.
This Motion is made pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2033.280, subdivision (a), and
2033.280, subdivision (b), on the grounds that Defendant FCA US LLC
(“Defendant”) has failed to provide any responses to Plaintiffs’
Interrogatories, which seek information directly relevant to their claims under
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Thus, Plaintiffs seek an order
compelling Defendant to produce responses, without objections, within 10
calendar days of the Court’s order.”
(Pl. Mot. p. 2.)
Procedural –
Motion 1
Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Rodney Joshua Thomas Jr. and
Anthony Erick Almazo
Responding Party: No Opposition
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order; Sogoyan
Declaration
Opposition Papers: No Opposition
Reply: No Reply
16/21
Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a): Ok
Procedural –
Motion 2
Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Rodney Joshua Thomas Jr.
and Anthony Erick Almazo
Responding Party: No Opposition
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order; Sogoyan
Declaration
Opposition Papers: No Opposition
Reply: No Reply
16/21
Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a): Ok
Procedural – Motion 3
Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Rodney Joshua Thomas Jr. and
Anthony Erick Almazo
Responding Party: No Opposition
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order; Sogoyan
Declaration
Opposition Papers: No Opposition
Reply: No Reply
16/21
Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a): Ok
LEGAL
STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INSPECTION DEMANDS
Within
30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of
the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response
on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the
party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or
unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court
has extended the time for response. (CCP § 2031.260(a).)
If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the
party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the
demand. (CCP § 2031.300(b).)
If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the
party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is
directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege
or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
2018.010). (CCP § 2031.300(a).) “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 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240,
and 2031.280. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result
of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2031.300(a)(1)-(2).)
Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion
to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding
party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a
“meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404
citing Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The
Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶ 8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to
8:1489, pp. 8H-29 to hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)
LEGAL STANDARD –REQUEST TO DEEM ADMISSIONS ADMITTED
“Within 30 days after service of requests for
admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original
of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on
all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party
the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the
responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (CCP § 2033.250(a).)
If a party to whom
requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, 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). (CCP § 2033.280(b).)
Further, “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.” (CCP § 2033.280(a).)
“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.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
If
a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,
the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling
response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).)
“The
party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the
option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to
the interrogatories, 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 2030.210,
2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely
response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP §
2030.290(a).)
Unlike
a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not
subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to
demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer”
requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 citing Weil and
Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group
2006) ¶¶ 8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to 8:1489, pp. 8H-29 to
hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs lumped what
should have been four motions into three motions.
A motion must be brought separately as to each
discovery method at issue. The instant three motions should have been filed as four
separate motions and four filing fees paid. Plaintiffs’ Motion 3 lumped
compelling responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, into one
motion when it should have been filed as two separate motions, i.e., one motion
for FROGs and one motion for SROGs. “[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory
and jurisdictional.” (Hu vs. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal. App.
4th 1261, 1269.)
If
Plaintiffs want these four motions to be heard, they can pay the additional
filing fee to the Court before the hearing and show proof of payment of the
additional filing fee before the hearing.
Alternatively,
Plaintiffs are welcome to request the Court to advance and continue the instant
hearing to a date that all four motions will be scheduled for; however,
Plaintiffs are warned that all motions must provide sufficient notice to
Defendant. Further, the Plaintiffs would need to clarify which discovery method
Motion 3 will pertain to on the future hearing date, i.e., will Motion 3
pertain to special interrogatories or form interrogatories. Presumably, the additional
motion filed will clearly indicate what individual discovery method it pertains
to, i.e. FROGs or SROGs.
As
to the merits of these motions, on August 29, 2023, Plaintiffs served Form
Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents,
and Requests for Admissions, Set One, on Defendant. (Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 8.)
As
of the date of the Sogoyan Declaration [April 5, 2024], Defendant has failed to
provide any responses to the discovery served on August 29, 2023.
The
Court finds that Defendant has not provided timely responses to the discovery
served on August 29, 2023.
Motion
1 is GRANTED and the truth of the matters are deemed admitted in Plaintiffs’
Requests for Admissions, Set One.
Motion
2 is GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant
responses without objections to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, Set One, within 10 calendar
days of the Court’s order.
If Plaintiffs show proof of the
additional filing fee paid to the Court, Motion 3 is GRANTED and Defendant is
ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to
Plaintiffs’ SROGs and FROGs, Set One, within 10 calendar days of the Court’s
order.
Sanctions - Inspection Demands
In relevant part, 2031.300(c) states as follows:
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 a response to a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.
(CCP § 2031.300(c).)
Sanctions –
Requests for Admission
“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.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Sanctions – Interrogatories
CCP
§ 2030.290 states in relevant part:
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.
(CCP § 2030.290(c).)
Sanctions Ruling
“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).)
The Court will
hear from counsel on the issue of sanctions.