Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV02091, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02091    Hearing Date: June 27, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 06/27/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 23GDCV02091
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: GEVORK ADJEMIAN, an individual; v. BMW NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and DOES 1-10 inclusive

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Gevork Adjemian, filed the instant action against BMW North America LLC on 10/02/2023 for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

TENTATIVE RULING

On 1/25/2024, Plaintiff filed three motions to compel further responses – RFAs Set One, RFPs Set One, and SROGs Set One. Confusingly, there is only one motion to compel further responses on the 6/27/2024 Calendar. The single motion on the 6/27/2024 Calendar has a Reservation ID ending in 8082. What Plaintiff did was use the same Reservation ID for all three motions. This is improper, as Plaintiff should have had three Reservation IDs so that three motions were on calendar. By Plaintiff filing three motions under the guise of one motion, Plaintiff unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants and does not properly allow the Court to manage its calendar. Further, by only using one Reservation ID for three motions, Plaintiff deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect. “[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu vs. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1269.) 

Based on Plaintiff’s Reply papers, Plaintiff indicates that it withdrew its motion to compel further responses re: RFPs. Therefore, it appears as if Plaintiff wants only two motions heard – RFAs Set One and SROGs Set One.

Before the hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to pay the additional filing fees if it wants its two motions heard.

As to the merits of the two motions that are allegedly on calendar – RFAs and SROGs, Set One – Defendant served supplemental responses on June 14, 2024, which would have been after Plaintiff filed the motion(s) and after Defendant already opposed the motions.

Because Defendant provided supplemental responses, Plaintiff’s motions to compel further re: RFAs and SROGs Set One are denied as moot.

Typically, the issue of sanctions would not be moot because Defendant didn’t serve supplemental responses until after the motion was filed; however, Plaintiff did not request sanctions.

As to the Reply’s arguments that the supplemental responses are not proper, those issues are not before the Court. If Plaintiff has issues with the supplemental responses, Plaintiff would have to follow all applicable law and code sections of the CCP to file a motion to compel further responses directed at the supplemental responses.

Sanctions

“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 further 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 § 2030.300(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 further response, 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 § 2033.290(d).)

“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 the parties on the issue of sanctions.