Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 22CHCV00784, Date: 2024-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 22CHCV00784    Hearing Date: July 10, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 5/10/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Macaria Beltran, an individual, and Macaria Beltran, Trustee of The MCB Trust (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: NOT OK (see analysis below).

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to produce supplemental responses to Defendants’ first set of Special Interrogatories and imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record for $1,635.00

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on September 26, 2022. Subsequently, on December 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed his operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants and Does 1 to 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Fraud; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (3) Specific Performance. Following this, Defendants filed their Answer to the FAC on January 11, 2023.

On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney with the Court, substituting himself for his former counsel.

Subsequently, on the same day, May 10, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), Set One (the “Motion”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

A.    Procedural Requirements

1.      Timeliness

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (c), notice of this motion must be given within 45 days following the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or by a later date agreed-upon in writing, failing which the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); but see Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 134-136 [suggesting that the 45-day deadline does not apply to (i.e., it does not begin to run with service of) objections-only responses; it only applies to responses that are required to be verified].)

The 45-day deadline “is ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

“Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)

Here, Plaintiff served written responses by email to Defendants’ first set of SROG on February 14, 2024, (Block Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. “B.”) The service of written responses establishes the deadline for Defendants to file a motion to compel further as April 4, 2024, calculated based on a 45-day period with an extension of two court days per Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3)(B), accounting for the method of electronic service.

Therefore, the Court finds the Motion is filed timely as it was filed prior to the established deadline.

2.      Meet and Confer

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Here, the Court finds Defendants’ meet and confer efforts to be sufficient. (Block Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. “C” and “D.”)

3.      Separate Statement

The California Rules of Court rule 3.1345 (a)(2) explicitly states that “Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: ... (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories.” “A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).)

Here, Defendants have fulfilled the requirement by concurrently filing a separate statement with the Motion.

4.      Proof of Service

For noticed motions, “[u]nless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers must be served and filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and, when applicable, the statutes and rules providing for electronic filing and service.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(a).)

“Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

Furthermore, “[i]f a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of that document is deemed complete at the time of the electronic transmission of the document or at the time that the electronic notification of service of the document is sent.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(A).)

Here, Defendants submit Proof of Service, indicating that on May 10, 2024, papers associated with the Motion were served upon Plaintiff’s former counsels, Adam Grant and David Almaraz, by emailing the documents to the former counsels’ email addresses.

However, the Proof of Service was filed with the Court at 4:25 p.m. concurrently with the Motion, subsequent to Plaintiff’s filing of Substitution of Attorney at 3:36 p.m. on the same day.

According to Code of Civil Procedure section 284, which provides that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination ... [u]pon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes,” Plaintiff’s former counsels ceased to represent Plaintiff upon the filing of the Substitution of Attorney, i.e., at 3:36 p.m. on May 10, 2024, and are no longer authorized to accept service on Plaintiff’s behalf. Moreover, Defendants have not submitted any evidence of service upon the self-representing Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendants have failed to demonstrate effective service of the moving papers either on Plaintiff’s former counsels or on Plaintiff, in pro per, pursuant to applicable Code of Civil Procedure sections.

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Defendants’ Motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and California Rules of Court rule 3.1300(a).

Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

As the Court has denied the Motion, the request for monetary sanctions, reserved for a prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), is also DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED.

Defendants’ Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.