Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV00262, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00262    Hearing Date: September 13, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF AUSTIN SMITH TO PROVIDE RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [9803]

Motion filed: 5/6/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant AutoNation Ford Valencia

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Austin Smith

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court compelling Plaintiff to provide responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 15 days, and imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Austin Smith and his attorney of record, in the amount of $2,102.50.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Taylor Peacock (“Peacock”) and Austin Smith (“Smith”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought this action under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Lemon Law), Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act over alleged defects in their 2020 Ford Expedition (the “Subject Vehicle”), which was manufactured by Defendant Ford Motor Company (“FMC”). Plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with Defendant FMC on or about December 19, 2020.

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiffs initiated this action. Subsequently, on May 26, 2023, the Department F47 Court sustained a demurrer filed by Defendant FMC on April 10, 2023.

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants FMC and AutoNation Ford Valencia (“AutoNation Ford”), and Does 1 through 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (2) Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (3) Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code §§ 1791.1, 1794, 1795.5), (5) Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment, (6) Negligent Repair, (7) Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.), and (8) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The First – Fifth, and Seventh – Eighth Causes of Action are alleged against Defendant FMC. The Six Cause of Action is alleged against AutoNation Ford. Subsequently, on December 5, 2023, the Department F47 Court sustained FMC’s demurrer to the Third and Fifth Causes of Action.

On May 6, 2024, AutoNation Ford filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff Smith’s Responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motion”).

Subsequently, on August 29, 2024, Smith filed his Opposition to the Motion, and AutoNation Ford replied on September 6, 2024.

ANALYSIS

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs to be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) 

A.    Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

AutoNation Ford’s counsel (“Counsel”) attests that on March 7, 2024, Smith was served with the first set of Form Interrogatories. (Geraghty Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. “2.”) Having not received any responses by the due date, Counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a written meet and confer letter on April 24, 2024, requesting Plaintiff Smith to serve his responses, without objection, by April 29, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. “3.”) On May 6, 2024, Counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel via telephone, however unsuccessful.  (Id. ¶ 6.) Despite these efforts, no responses had been received from Plaintiff Smith at the time of the filing of the Motion. (Id. ¶ 8.) Subsequently, Plaintiffs’ counsel served verified discovery responses to AutoNation Ford on August 28, 2024. (Sanaia Decl. ¶ 8.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Smith failed to serve a timely response, thereby waiving any objection to the interrogatories, including those based on privilege or the protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

Nevertheless, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b) provides, in pertinent part, that the court “on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that the untimely response was due to a calendaring error. (Sanaia Decl. ¶ 8.) In the Opposition, Plaintiff Smith argues that the untimely responses resulted from a law clerk’s misunderstanding about whether the clerk or handling attorney would be causing the service of the responses, justifying the relief from waiver due to an excusable mistake, inadvertence, and neglect. (Opp’n. at p. 4.) The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.

Established case law holds that errors such as misreading a calendar do not qualify as excusable neglect absent extraordinary circumstances. (See Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674). Similarly, simple carelessness, lack of diligence, or neglect without reasonable justification is not excusable. (See Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406 [attorney’s failure to respond to discovery due to “press of business” did not constitute excusable neglect.])

Additionally, in the Reply, AutoNation Ford contends that Smith’s subsequent responses include improper objections and do not answer all of the subparts as required under the code. (Reply at p. 3.)

Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the subsequently served responses were in substantial compliance with applicable sections.

Accordingly, the Court finds Smith’s argument for relief is not well founded. Consequently, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), Plaintiff Smith has waived any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.

Based on the above, the Court GRANT IN PART the Motion as to the waiver.

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), “[t]he Court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust....” Additionally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(A) further provides, “The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Underlines added.)

Here, Plaintiff Smith did not provide responses to the Form Interrogatories within the timeframe set forth under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260. Although Plaintiff has subsequently served his untimely responses, the Court finds that it is appropriate to impose monetary sanctions.

Given that the Motion shares significant similarities with another concurrently filed motion, the Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $435.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $250.00 for 1.5 hours reasonably spent, in addition to a $60.00 filing fee.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant AutoNation Ford’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendant AutoNation Ford Valencia’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Austin Smith is deemed to have waived any objections under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

Defendant AutoNation Ford Valencia’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Austin Smith and his attorney of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $435.00 to Defendant AutoNation Ford Valencia within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF
TAYLOR PEACOCK TO PROVIDE RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [4810]

Motion
filed: 5/6/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant AutoNation Ford Valencia

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Taylor Peacock

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF
REQUESTED: An
order from this Court compelling Plaintiff to provide responses, without
objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 15 days, and imposing monetary
sanctions against Plaintiff Taylor Peacock and her attorney of record, in the
amount of $2,102.50.

TENTATIVE
RULING: The
motion is GRANTED IN PART. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN
PART.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Taylor Peacock (“Peacock”) and Austin Smith
(“Smith”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought this action under Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act (Lemon Law), Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act over alleged defects in their 2020 Ford Expedition
(the “Subject Vehicle”), which was manufactured by Defendant Ford Motor Company
(“FMC”). Plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with Defendant FMC on or
about December 19, 2020.

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiffs initiated this action.
Subsequently, on May 26, 2023, the Department F47 Court sustained a demurrer
filed by Defendant FMC on April 10, 2023.

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants FMC and AutoNation Ford Valencia
(“AutoNation Ford”), and Does 1 through 10, alleging the following causes of
action: (1) Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (2) Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section
1793.2, (3) Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (4)
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code §§ 1791.1, 1794,
1795.5), (5) Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment, (6) Negligent Repair, (7)
Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.), and (8)
Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The First – Fifth, and Seventh –
Eighth Causes of Action are alleged against Defendant FMC. The Six Cause of
Action is alleged against AutoNation Ford. Subsequently, on December 5, 2023,
the Department F47 Court sustained FMC’s demurrer to the Third and Fifth Causes
of Action.

On May 6, 2024, AutoNation Ford
filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff Peacock’s Responses to its Form
Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motion”).

Subsequently, on August 29,
2024, Peacock filed her Opposition to the Motion, and AutoNation Ford replied
on September 6, 2024.

ANALYSIS

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to
serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling
responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290,
subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel
where no responses have been served. All that needs to be shown in the
moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the
opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of
any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111
Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) 

A.   
Motion to
Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

AutoNation Ford’s counsel
(“Counsel”) attests that on March 7, 2024, Peacock was served with the first
set of Form Interrogatories. (Geraghty Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. “2.”) Having not
received any responses by the due date, Counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a
written meet and confer letter on April 24, 2024, requesting Plaintiff Peacock
to serve her responses, without objection, by April 29, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5,
Ex. “3.”) On May 6, 2024, Counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff’s counsel via
telephone, however unsuccessful.  (Id.
¶ 6.) Despite these efforts, no responses had been received from Plaintiff
Peacock at the time of the filing of the Motion. (Id. ¶ 8.) Subsequently,
Plaintiffs’ counsel served verified discovery responses to AutoNation Ford on
August 28, 2024. (Sanaia Decl. ¶ 8.)

Based on the above records,
the Court determines that Peacock failed to serve a timely response, thereby
waiving any objection to the interrogatories, including those based on
privilege or the protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a).

Nevertheless, Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b) provides, in pertinent part, that
the court “on
motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both
of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently
served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210,
2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The party’s failure to serve a
timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”

Plaintiff’s counsel attests
that the untimely response was due to a calendaring error. (Sanaia Decl. ¶ 8.) In
the Opposition, Plaintiff Peacock argues that the untimely responses resulted
from a law clerk’s misunderstanding about whether the clerk or handling
attorney would be causing the service of the responses, justifying the relief
from waiver due to an excusable mistake, inadvertence, and neglect. (Opp’n. at
p. 4.) The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.

Established case law holds
that errors such as misreading a calendar do not qualify as excusable neglect absent
extraordinary circumstances. (See Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 674). Similarly, simple carelessness, lack of diligence, or neglect
without reasonable justification is not excusable. (See Huh v. Wang
(2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406 [attorney’s failure to respond to discovery due to
“press of business” did not constitute excusable neglect.])

Additionally, in the Reply,
AutoNation Ford contends that Peacock’s subsequent responses include improper
objections and do not answer all of the subparts as required under the code.
(Reply at p. 3.)

Consequently, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s failure
to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or
excusable neglect, and that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the
subsequently served responses were in substantial compliance with applicable
sections.

Accordingly, the Court finds
Peacock’s argument for relief is not well founded. Consequently, under Code of
Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), Plaintiff Peacock has waived
any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as
well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege
or on the protection for work product.

Based on the above, the
Court GRANT IN PART the Motion as to the waiver.

B.    
Monetary
Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 2030.290, subdivision (c), “[t]he Court shall impose a monetary
sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party,
person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a
response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make
the imposition of the sanction unjust....” Additionally, California Rules of
Court rule 3.1348(A) further provides, “The Court may award sanctions under the
Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even
though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was
withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after
the motion was filed.” (Underlines added.)

Here, Plaintiff Peacock did not provide
responses to the Form Interrogatories within the timeframe set forth under Code
of Civil Procedure section 2030.260. Although Plaintiff has subsequently served
her untimely responses, the Court finds that it is appropriate to impose
monetary sanctions.

The Court determines the total and
reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed
in connection with the Motion to be $685.00, calculated based on a reasonable
hourly rate of $250.00 for 2.5 hours reasonably spent, in addition to a $60.00
filing fee.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS
IN PART Defendant AutoNation Ford’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendant
AutoNation Ford Valencia’s Motion to Compel Responses
to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Taylor Peacock
is deemed to have waived any objections under Code of Civil Procedure section
2030.290, subdivision (a).

Defendant
AutoNation Ford Valencia’s Request for Monetary
Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Taylor Peacock and her attorney
of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $685.00 to Defendant
AutoNation Ford Valencia within 20 days.

Moving
party to give notice.