Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV29311, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

        All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.


            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    


            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the  matter off calendar.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 

Case Number: 22STCV29311    Hearing Date: January 7, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

REVISED TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Hamid Mogadam’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Malcolm Tripp to provide responses to his Form Interrogatories (Set One) is granted.  Defendant Malcolm Tripp is ordered to provide responses without objections within 20 days.

Plaintiff Hamid Mogadam’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Malcolm Tripp to provide further responses to his Requests for Admission (Set One) is granted.  Defendant Malcolm Tripp to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One) within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Hamid Mogadam’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel further responses from Defendant Malcolm Tripp to respond to his Requests for Admission (Set One) is granted in the amount of $7,373.

          Plaintiff Hamid Mogadam (“Mogadam”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed to compel Defendant Malcolm Tripp (“Tripp”) (“Defendant”) to provide responses to his Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One) (“FROG”).  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §2030.300(d).)

Plaintiff moves unopposed for an order to compel Defendant to respond to his Requests for Admission (Set One) (“RFA”).  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §2033.290(d).)

Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant in the total amount of $7,373.00 for his failure to substantively respond to the written discovery at issue and the inability to demonstrate that he has acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances exist that would make imposition of such sanctions unjust.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)[1]

1.     Motion to Compel FROG

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s FROG, the Court rules as follows.

          On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff served FROG on Defendant.  (Decl. of Witt ¶2.)  On September 20, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant’s responses to FROG, which was comprised of boilerplate objections.  (Decl. of Witt ¶3, Exh. D.)  Plaintiff now moves to compel responses to the FROG.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is granted pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.290(b).  Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s FROG compliant with C.C.P. §§2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objections within 20 days.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

2.     Motion to Compel RFA

Meet and Confer

          A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.  (C.C.P. §2033.290(b)(1).)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares the parties participated in an IDC with this Court on October 17, 2024.  (Decl. of Witt ¶8.)  The Court deemed the issues in the IDC unresolved.  (10/17/24 IDC Minute Order.)

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to RFA against Defendant, the Court rules as follows.

On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff served RFA on Defendant.  (Decl. of Witt ¶2.)  On September 20, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant’s responses to RFA, which was comprised of objections.  (Decl. of Witt ¶3, Exh. C.)  Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s RFA.

          Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s RFA is improper; a motion to compel responses to an RFA does not exist.  Where responses have been timely served but are deemed deficient by the requesting party (e.g., because of objections or evasive responses), that party may move for an order compelling a further response.  (C.C.P. §2033.290.)  Here, Plaintiff’s notice of motion is made under the proper subsection, §2033.290(d).  Because Plaintiff’s motion is in effect a motion to compel further answers, and provides notice of the proper C.C.P. subsection, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion.

          Plaintiff’s motion is granted pursuant to C.C.P. §2033.290(a).  Defendant is ordered to provide further, Code-compliant responses to the RFA within 20 days of this ruling.

          Plaintiff requests sanctions of $7,373.00 pursuant to C.C.P. § 2033.290(d).  Defendant does not oppose this request.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

Dated:  January _____, 2025