Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV1565, Date: 2024-08-29 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.

If you submitted a
courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive),
unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will
destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against Defendant The Woman’s Club of Hollywood, California, is denied.

Plaintiffs Sara Van Horn’s and Patrick Van Horn’s motion to deem the truth of the matters admitted and the genuineness of the documents specified therein in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) served on Defendant Rosemary Lord is denied as moot.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against Defendant Rosemary Lord is denied.

Defendants’ request for sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel is denied.

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Admitted the RFAs to WCOHC, the Court rules as follows.

On March 30, 2024, Plaintiffs served RFA (Set One) on WCOHC. (Decl. of Holliday ¶8, Exh. A.) WCHOC’s verified responses were due no later than May 6, 2024. (Decl. of Holliday ¶9.) Plaintiffs argue WCOHC never served responses or objections to the RFAs on them. (Decl. of Holliday ¶10.) Plaintiffs now move to deem admitted the RFA.

Plaintiffs’ motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in their RFA to WCOHC is denied as moot. WCOHC has provided Plaintiffs with its responses to Plaintiffs’ RFA, which were attached to Defendants’ opposition filed on August 15, 2024. WCOHC argues the parties engaged in a telephonic meet and confer on May 10, 2024, wherein counsel for WCOHC requested from Plaintiffs’ counsel a copy of all discovery and pleadings that predated current counsel’s representation of WCOHC, which Plaintiffs did not provide. (Decl. of Cain ¶11.) WCOHC further argues its counsel was never notified that any responses to RFAs were outstanding prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of the instant motion on June 11, 2024. (Decl. of Cain ¶12, Exh. 5.)

However, the Court agrees that WCOHC’s verification sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel on July 3, 2024, is a different version from the verification attached to Defendants’ opposition, filed on August 15, 2024. (Compare Reply Decl. of Holliday at PDF pg. 9 with Opposition at PDF pg. 53.) Counsel for both parties are strongly advised to meet and confer via telephone to obviate the need for Court intervention on issues such as this.

Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions totaling $3,100.00 against both Defendants. Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel in the amount of $1,250.00. (Opposition, pg. 6; C.C.P. §2023.030.) In light of the instant ruling and the simple fix a civil telephone conversation between counsel should have resolved, the Court declines to award either party sanctions.

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Admitted the RFAs to Lord, the Court rules as follows.

On April 1, 2024, Plaintiffs served RFA (Set One) on Lord. (Decl. of Holliday ¶8, Exh. B.) Lord’s verified responses were due no later than May 6, 2024. (Decl. of Holliday ¶9.) Plaintiffs argue they never served responses or objections from Lord. (Decl. of Holliday ¶10.) Plaintiffs now move to deem admitted the RFA.

Plaintiffs’ motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in their RFA to Lord is denied as moot. Lord has provided Plaintiffs with its responses to Plaintiffs’ RFA, which were attached to Defendants’ opposition filed on August 15, 2024. Lord argues the parties engaged in a telephonic meet and confer on May 10, 2024, wherein counsel for Lord requested from Plaintiffs’ counsel a copy of all discovery and pleadings that predated current counsel’s representation of Lord, which Plaintiffs did not provide. (Decl. of Cain ¶11.) Lord further argues her counsel was never notified that any responses to RFAs were outstanding prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of the instant motion on June 11, 2024. (Decl. of Cain ¶12, Exh. 5.)

Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions totaling $3,100.00 against both Defendants. Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel in the amount of $1,250.00. (Opposition, pg. 6; C.C.P. §2023.030.) In light of the instant ruling the Court declines to award either party sanctions.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court notes Plaintiffs improperly file an omnibus Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted. It is improper for parties to file a single document relating to more than one discovery motion. Here, Plaintiffs are moving to deem RFAs admitted for two separate Defendants for two separate RFAs. Therefore, Plaintiffs owe this Court an additional $60 filing fee for failing to reserve a separate hearing and file associated documents as required in this circumstance. This Court’s ruling is not effective until Plaintiffs issue payment to this Court.