Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV22760, Date: 2024-05-28 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.  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.  

Case Number: 23STCV22760    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

BRANDI NOEL THOMPSON,

 

         vs.

 

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al.

 Case No.:  23STCV22760

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  May 24, 2024

 

Plaintiff Brandi Noel Thompson’s motion to compel Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC to provide responses to her Request for Production (Set One) is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Brandi Noel Thompson’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses for her Request for Production (Set One) is denied.

Plaintiff Brandi Noel Thompson’s motion for an order to deem the truth of the matters admitted in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) to Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Brandi Noel Thompson’s request for monetary sanctions on the Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) Admitted is denied.

         

          Plaintiff Brandi Noel Thompson (“Thompson”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“MBUSA”) (“Defendant”) to provide responses to her Request for Production (“RFP”).  (Notice of Motion RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2031.310, 2031.320.)  Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against MBUSA in the amount of $3,220.00.  (Notice of Motion RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2031.310, 2023.030, et seq.)

Plaintiff moves to deem the truth of the matters admitted in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set One) (“RFA”) to MBUSA.  (Notice of Motion RFA, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2033.280(a), 2033.280(b).)  Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against MBUSA in the amount of $2,904.00.  (Notice of Motion RFA, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2031.310, 2023.030, et seq.)

 

1.     Motion to Compel- RFP

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to RFP, the Court rules as follows.

          On or about November 13, 2023, Plaintiff served RFP on MBUSA.  (Decl. of Serrano ¶9, Exh. 1.)  MBUSA’s deadline to respond was December 13, 2023.  On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant with a meet and confer letter indicating that their responses were overdue and that objections were waived pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.300, wherein Plaintiff further requested a response by Defendant, no later than December 29, 2023.  (See Decl. of Serrano ¶11, Exh. 2.)  Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff or serve any production.  (Decl. of Serrano ¶13.)  Plaintiff now moves to compel production. 

          Plaintiff’s motion to compel RFP is denied because MBUSA’s late filed opposition indicates that “despite an inadvertent delay, verified responses to written discovery requests were served on May 22, 2024, rendering this motion moot. Document production followed shortly thereafter.”  (Opposition, pgs. 1-2; see Decl. of Dao ¶¶4-5, Exh. A.)

          Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as moot.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions totaling $3,220.00 against MBUSA.

          In light of the Court’s ruling on the motion, the Court declines to award sanctions.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

 

2.     Motion to Deem Admitted- RFA

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admitted RFA, the Court rules as follows.

          On or about November 13, 2023, Plaintiff served RFA on MBUSA.  (Decl. of Serrano ¶9, Exh. 1.)  MBUSA’s deadline to respond was December 13, 2023.  On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant with a meet and confer letter indicating that their responses were overdue and that objections were waived pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.300, wherein Plaintiff further requested a response by Defendant, no later than December 29, 2023.  (See Decl. of Serrano ¶11, Exh. 2.)  Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff or serve any production.  (Decl. of Serrano ¶13.)  Plaintiff now moves to deem admitted the RFA. 

          Plaintiff’s motion to deem the truth of the matters admitted in the RFA is denied because MBUSA’s late filed opposition indicates that “despite an inadvertent delay, verified responses to written discovery requests were served on May 22, 2024, rendering this motion moot.”  (Opposition, pgs. 1-2; see Decl. of Dao ¶¶4-5, Exh. A.)

          Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as moot.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions totaling $2,904.00 against MBUSA.

          In light of the Court’s ruling on the motion, the Court declines to award sanctions.

Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.

 

 

Dated:  May _____, 2024

                                                                            

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court