Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV20219, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20219    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Blanca Berlanga (“Berlanga”) and Helmont Berlanga Plata (“Plata”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Joyce Chua Sarmiento, et. al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.   

On July 13, 2022, Berlanga filed the instant motions to compel responses (1) to form interrogatories, set one, against Joyce Chua Sarmiento (“Sarmiento”), (2) to form interrogatories, set one, against Defendant the Estate of Norman Weiss, Deceased (“Weiss”), (3) to special interrogatories, set one, against Sarmiento, (4) to request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, against Sarmiento, and (5) motion to deem request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, admitted against Sarmiento.  Additionally, Plata filed the motions to compel responses (1) to form interrogatories, set one, against Sarmiento, (2) to special interrogatories, set one, against Sarmiento, (3) to RPDs, set one, against Sarmiento, and (4) motion to deem RFAs, set one, admitted against Sarmiento. 

Plaintiffs propounded the subject discovery on Sarmiento and Weiss on July 27, 2021.  As of the filing of the nine motions, and despite attempts to meet and confer and an extension of time to respond, neither Sarmiento nor Weiss served responses to the discovery.  Plaintiffs therefore seeks an order compelling Sarmiento and Weiss to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, deeming the RFAs against Sarmiento admitted, and imposing sanctions against Sarmiento and Weiss.

            On December 8 and 9, 2022, Sarmiento and Weiss filed an opposition to each motion to compel and the motion to deem RFAs admitted.  Sarmiento and Weiss provide that their counsel served verified responses to the subject discovery on November 7, 2022, so the motions are now moot.  Sarmiento and Weiss contend they have responded as completely as possible to the discovery, and that timely responses were not provided because of defense counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, or neglect.  Sarmiento and Weiss argue that sanctions should be imposed against Plaintiffs for not withdrawing the motions. 

            In reply, Plaintiffs “concede that further responses are not warranted”, (Reply at p. 2:16-17), but Plaintiffs contend that sanctions should be imposed due to the failure to serve timely responses to the discovery requests.    

The motions to compel and deem RFAs admitted are moot in light of the responses served on Plaintiffs prior to the hearing.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)

The sole remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions.  Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)  In this case, Sarmiento and Weiss did not serve discovery responses for more than a year after the requests were served and several months after the discovery motions were filed.   Because Sarmiento and Weiss failed to serve responses until after Plaintiffs filed the instant motions, sanctions are warranted.   Plaintiffs seek sanctions against Sarmiento, Weiss, and their attorney of record.  Plaintiffs do not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Sarmiento and Weiss personally.  Rather, the evidence shows that, and defense counsel admits, the failure to serve timely responses was due to Sarmiento’s and Weiss’s counsel’s prolonged inaction.  Sanctions are imposed against Sarmiento’s and Weiss’s attorney of record only.  Sarmiento’s and Weiss’s request for sanctions is denied.

As to Berlanga’s motions, Berlanga is awarded the requested 3.75 hours for preparing the five motions, 0.25 hours for the reply, and 0.5 hours to appear at the hearing as it relates to Berlanga’s motions- but awards this time once- all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $900 in attorney fees.  Further, Berlanga is awarded five motions filing fees of $60, or $300 total, as costs.  Sarmiento’s and Weiss’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Berlanga, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,200.00, within twenty days. 

As to Plata’s motions, Plata is awarded the requested 3.25 hours for preparing the four motions, 0.25 hours for the reply, and 0.5 hours to appear at the hearing as it relates to Plata’s motions- but awards this time once- all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $800 in attorney fees.  Further, Plata is awarded four motions filing fees of $60, or $240 total, as costs.  Sarmiento’s and Weiss’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Plata, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,040.00, within twenty days. 

Plaintiffs are 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 3^rd day of January 2022