Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case Number: 22STCV28325, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV28325, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28325 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: 76

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Zelocchi stole Plaintiff’s laptop which contained a cryptocurrency wallet, and Zelocchi tried to extort money from Plaintiff to give back the laptop. However, Defendant Zelocchi then kidnapped Plaintiff and threatened him. Plaintiff was able to escape. Defendant Do was allegedly assisting Defendant Zelocchi in decrypting the laptop password to access the cryptocurrency.

Plaintiff hired Defendants Childs and Paramount Investigative Services to watch Defendant Do so that Plaintiff could contact law enforcement when Do left the laptop unattended at his home. However, Defendant Childs allegedly had conspired with Zelocchi, and did not perform any of the surveillance for which Plaintiff had paid.

Thereafter, the Defendants engaged in defamation and extortion activities against Plaintiff.

Defendant Kenneth Childs and Paramount Investigative Services Inc. moves to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, nos. 73, 75, 78, 79, and form interrogatories, set one (no. 17.1, as it pertains to the requests for admission), and for an order deeming admitted requests for admission, set one, nos. 46, 50, 60, 67, 85, 86, 91, 94, 97-102).

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Kenneth Childs and Paramount Investigative Services Inc.’s motion to compel responses to form and special interrogatories is GRANTED. Verified responses, without objection, are due within 30 days. Defendant did not request sanctions.

Defendant’s motion for an order deeming admitted requests for admission against Plaintiff is GRANTED. Defendant did not request sanctions.

The Court denies Defendant’s request to set an OSC re: Plaintiff’s abandonment of his case. As of the current date, it does not appear to the Court that any of the bases for mandatory dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583-110-583.430 exist. To the extent that any grounds for discretionary dismissal exist, Defendant may bring a pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 or Rule of Court 3.3140.

ANALYSIS

Although Defendant combined three motions into one, it appears that Defendant reserved three separate hearing dates, so the Court will proceed to rule on all three motions.

Motions To Compel Responses To Form Interrogatories

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.290(b) a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

As of the date of this motion, Plaintiff has failed to serve any responses to the particular form and special interrogatories identified in the motion. (Declaration of James Whitemyer.) As such, the motion to compel responses to form and special interrogatories is GRANTED. Verified responses, without objection, are due within 30 days.

Defendant did not request sanctions.

Motion To Deem Admitted Requests For Admission

Defendant Kenneth Childs and Paramount Investigative Services Inc. moves for an order deeming admitted requests for admission, set one, nos. 46, 50, 60, 67, 85, 86, 91, 94, 97-102).

When a party to whom a request for admissions are directed fails to respond, under Civ. Proc. Code, § 2033.280(b) a party propounding the request for admission may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted. “The court shall make this order [deem admitted], unless it finds that the party to whom the request for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the request for admission that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.” (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2033.280(c).)

As of the date of this motion, Plaintiff has failed to serve any responses to the specific requests for admission identified in the motion. (Declaration of James Whitemyer.) As such, the motion for an order deeming admitted requests for admission against Plaintiff is GRANTED.

Defendant did not request monetary sanctions.