Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV03688, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03688    Hearing Date: March 18, 2025    Dept: 76

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 1:53 PM on March 17, 2025. 

Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1).  The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. 

As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on March 17, 2025.

Notice to Department 76 should be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email.  The high volume of telephone calls to Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to appear is not given.

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendant lessors misrepresented that the commercial warehouse was usable for Plaintiff’s trucking, warehousing, and logistics business, but because the premises were not ADA compliant, it was not eligible for a certificate of occupancy. This resulted in Plaintiff not being able to operate its business, which caused businesses losses.

            Defendant 300 West Artesia, L.P. filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Cross-Defendants breached the Lease.

            Defendant/Cross-Complainant 300 West Artesia, L.P. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jupiter Warehouse and Distribution, Inc. to provide verified substantive responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production of documents, as ordered by the Court on September 25, 2024.

TENTATIVE RULING

            If verified responses have been served prior to the hearing on these motions, the motions for an order compelling Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jupiter Warehouse and Distribution, Inc. to provide verified substantive responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production of documents, as ordered by the Court on September 25, 2024 will be deemed MOOT. If not, then the Court intends to impose the requested evidentiary sanction that Jupiter be precluded from using at trial any documents it failed to produce, unless Jupiter can demonstrate otherwise. However, the Court will not impose terminating sanctions at this time.

            As for monetary sanctions, 300 West Artesia’s request is GRANTED against Jupiter and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced total amount of $4,900. Sanctions are to be paid to 300 West Artesia, LP’s counsel within 20 days.

Motions To Compel Compliance

Discussion

            Defendant/Cross-Complainant 300 West Artesia, L.P. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jupiter Warehouse and Distribution, Inc. to provide verified substantive responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production of documents, as ordered by the Court on September 25, 2024.

Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.300(e)[interrogatories] and 2031.310(i)[requests for production] provide:

[I]f a party fails to obey an order compelling further response . . . , the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

     (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.300(e) and 2031.310(i).)

            There is no meet and confer requirement, nor a separate statement requirement, set forth in connection with a subdivision (i) motion.

            Further, there is no need for the Court to issue another order that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jupiter Warehouse and Distribution, Inc. comply with the Court’s September 25, 2024 discovery order: one order is sufficient to compel compliance, and the Court will not issue redundant orders.

            In the opposition, Jupiter admits that responses were served to the wrong set by attorney Michael G. York, who is no longer with the firm. Jupiter represents that substantive responses will be provided prior to the hearing. If verified responses have been served prior to the hearing on these motions, the motions will be deemed MOOT. If not, then the Court intends to impose the requested evidentiary sanction that Jupiter be precluded from using at trial any documents it failed to produce, unless Jupiter can demonstrate otherwise. However, the Court will not impose terminating sanctions at this time.

            As for monetary sanctions, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Jupiter and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced total amount of $4,900 (7 hours total at $700/hour—Mooney Decl., ¶ 12.) Sanctions are to be paid to 300 West Artesia, LP’s counsel within 20 days.