Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV26853 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV26853, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26853 Hearing Date: September 27, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MANUELA ESCANDIA ANGEL,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JOSE RODRIGUEZ ALVARADO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

CASE NO: 21STCV26853

[TENTATIVE] ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO DEEM RFAS ADMITTED MOOT

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

September 27, 2022

Plaintiff Manuela Escandia Angel (“Plaintiff”) propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, request for admissions (“RFAs”), and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), all set one, on Defendant Jose Rodriguez Alvarado (“Defendant”) on February 28, 2022. As of filing the instant motions, and despite attempts to meet and confer, Defendant has not served responses. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, deeming the RFAs admitted, and imposing sanctions.

On September 19, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition to each motion to compel and the motion to deem RFAs admitted.[1] Defendant attests that he served responses without objections to each discovery request on July 15, 2022. Defendant asserts that it took “some additional time for the defendants to compose their responses; defendants are a small but very busy trucking company.” (Oppositions at p. 3:16-17.) Defendant further provides that it requested an extension of time to respond to the discovery, but Plaintiff did not provide the extension.

In reply, Plaintiff contends that Defendant served discovery responses only after the instant motions were filed. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff did not timely request discovery extensions. Plaintiff contends that while responses have now been served, Plaintiff should still be reimbursed for her costs and fees.

The Court finds that the motions to compel and deem RFAs admitted are moot in light of the responses served on Plaintiff 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. Given that responses were not served until after the motions were filed, sanctions are warranted. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Plaintiff is awarded one hour for preparing each form motion to compel [three hours] and one hour to appear at the hearing- but awards this time once- all at the reasonable rate $200 per hour, for a total of $800 in attorney fees. Plaintiff is further awarded three motion filing fees of $60 each, or $180 total, as costs.

Sanctions against sought and imposed against Defendant and Defendant’s attorney of record, jointly and severally. They are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $980.00, within twenty days.

As a final note, the Court realizes that Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories, is actually two motions combined into one: (a) motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and (b) motion to compel special interrogatories, set one. In the future, moving party is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Be that as it may, in the absence of any objection by Defendant and lack of any showing of prejudice, the Court will exercise its discretion to hear all motions, but the above orders will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $60 in filing fees (1 motions filing fees not paid for x $60 filing fee).

Plaintiff 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 27^th day of September 2022

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] As Plaintiff asserts in reply, Defendant untimely filed the oppositions only five court days before the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).) Although Plaintiff contends the late oppositions should be disregarded, because Plaintiff was able to file a reply addressing Defendant’s contentions, and in the absence of any prejudice, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the oppositions.