Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV00475, Date: 2024-12-04 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: 23CHCV00475    Hearing Date: December 4, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 9/25/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Los Angeles  

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to compel Plaintiff ASG Cannabis LLC LA Fav Farms to respond to Defendant City of Los Angeles’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff ASG Cannabis LLC LA Fav Farms and its counsel in the amount of $500.00.

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an allegedly unreasonable search by Defendants City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police Department on March 11, 2022, at Plaintiff Sokrat Grigorian’s indoor marijuana cultivation site, purportedly licensed as ASG Cannabis LLC Fav Farms, located at 13900 La Rue Street, San Fernando, CA 91340.

On February 17, 2023, Plaintiffs Sokrat Grigorian (“Grigorian”) and ASG Cannabis LLC La Fav Farms (“ASG Cannabis”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City of LA”) and Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Unreasonable Search (42 U.S.C. § 1983), (2) Conversion, (3) Trespass to Chattels, (4) Trespass, and (5) Negligence. Subsequently, on June 28, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On September 25, 2024, Defendant City of LA filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “Motion”). Subsequently, City of LA filed a Notice of Non-Opposition on November 25, 2024.

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

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.)

Additionally, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response ... [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives 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...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

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

Defendant City of LA’s counsel, Christina P. Schmidt (“Schmidt”), attests that on June 12, 2024, Special Interrogatories, Set One, were served upon Plaintiff ASG Cannabis by mail. (Schmidt Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. “A.”) This service established that responses were due on July 17, 2024, including a five-calendar-day extension applicable to service by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a). On July 9, 2024, ASG Cannabis’s counsel requested an extension to respond until July 30, 2024. (Id. ¶ 3.) On August 5, 2024, City of LA sent an email correspondence requesting the outstanding discovery as no responses were received. (Id. ¶ 4.)  However, as of the date of the filing of the Motion, ASG Cannabis had not served any responses. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Plaintiff ASG Cannabis 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, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), “[t]he 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.”

Here, Plaintiff ASG Cannabis did not file an Opposition to the Motion. Nor did it move separately for relief from the waiver. Additionally, there is no record indicating that any responses were subsequently served by Plaintiff ASG Cannabis prior to the hearing. Consequently, the Court finds that relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a) is unavailable in this circumstance.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the unopposed Motion.

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.)

The Court finds the mandatory sanction applies in this case. Utilizing the lodestar approach, 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 $500.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $250.00 for two hours of work reasonably spent.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant City of LA’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendant City of Los Angeles’s unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff ASG Cannabis LLC La Fav Farms is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to the Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

Defendant City of Los Angeles’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

Plaintiff ASG Cannabis LLC La Fav Farms and its attorney of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $500.00 to Defendant City of Los Angeles’s counsel within 20 days

Moving party to give notice.