Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV36458, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36458    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 28

Rosa Estrada; Alfredo Estrada v. B & V Enterprises, Inc. dba Super King Markets; Erika Vasquez, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV36458

The Motion is Denied

Plaintiffs filed a joint motion seeking to compel further responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories.  Plaintiffs later withdrew the motion to compel a further response to the subject special interrogatory, leaving on a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production.

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to provide Defendants with notice of any relevant statutory support for the motion, arguing that it is based upon the wrong discovery statute, i.e., Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2030.310 (authorizing a Motion to Compel a Further Response to Interrogatories) and Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2033.290 (authorizing a Motion to Compel a Further Response to Request for Admissions.). Plaintiff fails to cite the correct statute - Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2031.300.

In ruling on a motion, a trial court may only consider only the grounds stated in the notice of motion.  (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125).  As was explained by the Luri Court,

“A basic principle of motion practice is that the moving party must specify for the court and the opposing party the grounds upon which that party seeks relief. Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 requires that a notice of motion must state ‘the grounds upon which it will be made.’ California Rules of Court, rule 311 requires a notice of motion to state in its opening paragraph ‘the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.’ As a general rule, the trial court may consider only the grounds stated in the notice of motion. [Citations omitted.] An omission in the notice may be overlooked if the supporting papers make clear the grounds for the relief sought. [Citations omitted.] The purpose of these requirements is to cause the moving party to ‘sufficiently define the issues for the information and attention of the adverse party and the court.’ (Hernandez v. National Dairy Products (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 490, 493 [272 P.2d 799].)”

(Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 680].)

Except to preemptively oppose Defendants’ motion for a protective order, Plaintiffs’ moving papers make no reference to the appropriate statutory foundation for their motion – Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.  Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Moving party is to give notice of this ruling.