Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV29962, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29962    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendant Leslie Guadalupe Suarez Ponce (“Defendant”) propounded form interrogatories, set one, on each Plaintiffs Bernabe Campos (“Bernabe”) and Roberto Campos (“Roberto”) on January 7, 2022.  To date, despite an attempt to meet and confer, neither Bernabe nor Roberto has served responses.  Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Bernabe and Roberto to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

As to the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories against Bernabe, the caption of the motion and notice of motion state that this matter is set to be heard on September 29, 2022.  However, the Court’s records, and the reservation ID attached to Defendant’s motion, show that Defendant scheduled this motion to be heard on September 28, 2022.  There is no evidence Bernabe was ever given notice of the correct hearing date.  Because Bernabe was not given proper notice of the hearing date, the Court will take the motion to compel off calendar.  The ruling is without prejudice to Defendant re-filing the motion with proper notice. 

Defendant’s motion to compel responses against Roberto, of which proper notice was given, is unopposed and granted.  Roberto is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, set one, without objections, within ten days.  (CCP § 2030.290(a), (b).)

Sanctions are mandatory unless the Court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.  (CCP § 2030.290(c).)  Sanctions are denied for two reasons.  First, Defendant seeks sanctions against Roberto; however, Defendant does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Roberto personally.  Rather the evidence shows that the discovery requests and meet and confer letter were served on Roberto’s counsel, but Roberto’s counsel failed to respond.  No sanctions are requested against Plaintiff’s counsel.  Second, Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $366.25 “as substantiated in the Declaration of Sandy V. Lira filed” with the motion.  However, the subject declaration does not substantiate the requested sanctions- that is, no basis is provided as to how the sanctions requested were calculated.  Thus, no sanctions are awarded.  

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 28^th day of September 2022