Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV12304, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12304    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 32

 

AVA WELSING-KITCHER,

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

KARPLUS WAREHOUSE, INC, et al.,

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  23STCV12304

  Hearing Date:  January 6, 2025

 

     [TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s motion to compel responses

 

 

BACKGROUND

            On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff Ava Welsing-Kitcher filed this action against Defendants Karplus Warehouse, Inc. and The Western Surety Company, asserting claims arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of a Hyundai vehicle. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on July 31, 2023.

            On January 4, 2024, the Court ordered the matter to arbitration pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. On May 31, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw from arbitration.

            On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant Karplus to respond to form interrogatories.

LEGAL STANDARD

Discovery responses are due 30 days after service of the requests, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a).) If a responding party fails to respond in time, the propounding party may move for an order compelling the responses or deeming matters admitted. (Id., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b).) The responding party also waives its objections. (Id., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).) 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff served the subject form interrogatories on July 22, 2024. (Ratliff Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant did not serve responses by the deadline of August 23, 2024. (Id., ¶ 3.) Defendant did not respond to two follow-up emails from Plaintiff in September 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 4-7.) Defendant has not provided any responses to the FROGs to date. (Id., ¶ 8.)

            These facts demonstrate that Defendant has failed to respond to duly served discovery. Thus, an order compelling compliance is warranted. Sanctions are also warranted as Defendant has provided no substantial justification for its failure to respond. Plaintiff reasonably claims $305 per hour for 2.5 hours, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Ratliff Decl. ¶ 9.) Thus, the Court awards sanctions of $822.50.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED. Defendant Karplus Warehouse, Inc. shall serve responses to the subject form interrogatories within 15 days of this order. The Court sanctions Defendant in the amount of $822.50, to be paid within 30 days of this order.