Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 20STCV00712, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV00712 Hearing Date: June 4, 2025 Dept: 9
The Court hereby posts this tentative ruling
for the motion set for hearing on June 4, 2025.
However, the Court requests that the parties NOT submit because there
are issues that the Court would like to discuss with the parties.
Procedural Background
This is a putative wage-and-hour class action.
Plaintiff Raquel Patricio (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Plaintiff and the
aggrieved employees were employed by Defendants Saharan Motor Hotel LLC dba
Sunset West Hotel by Best Western (“Saharan”) and LNS Partners, Inc. (“LNS”)
(jointly “Defendants”) and that Defendants violated the Labor Code, Industrial
Welfare Commission wage orders, and the Business and Professions Code.
On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed the
Complaint naming Defendants Saharan and LNS.
On March 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint naming
Defendants Saharan and LNS.
On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed Doe
Amendments naming Hollywood Stay Hotel LLC, Cinema Spa Motel LLC, and Rajesh
Patel, as Does 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment naming AMI Services
Corp. as Doe 4. On June 2, 2022,
Plaintiff named Lark Motel LLC, Cahuenga Pass Hotel LLC, Travel Plaza Inn LLC,
Branco Motor Inn LLC, and Jashvanti Patel as Does 5 through 9, respectively.
On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed the
operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) asserting putative class and
representative claims. The Second
Amended Complaint named only Defendants Saharan and LNS. In the SAC, Plaintiff asserts six causes of
action for (1) failure to pay all wages including minimum wages and overtime
wages, (2) failure to provide rest periods, (3) failure to issue accurate and
itemized wage statements and to keep accurate payroll records, (4) failure to
provide meal periods, (5) unfair business practices, and (6) civil penalties
under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).
On September 28, 2022, the Court – presided by
the Honorable Yvette M. Palazuelos – found the instant action related to Los
Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV12139 and designated the instant action (20STCV00712)
as the lead case. (Minute Order
9/28/25.)
On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant
motion to compel Third-Party InterMountain Management, LLC’s compliance with a
deposition subpoena. On April 4, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a notice of hearing date and briefing schedule for the instant
motion. On May 15, 2025, Third-Party
InterMountain Management, LLC (“InterMountain”) filed an opposition. On May 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply. On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a
declaration regarding the reply.
Untimely Reply
“Unless otherwise
ordered or specifically provided by law … All papers opposing a motion so
noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least
nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the
hearing.” (CCP § 1005(b) [underline
added].) This is calculated by counting
backwards from the hearing date and excluding holidays and weekends. (CCP §§ 12-12(c).) The court may refuse to consider a late-filed
paper. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule
3.1300(d).)
Here, the Case
Management Order specified that “Counsel are to call the Court for a hearing
date and briefing schedule prior to posting and filing the motion.” (Case Management Order 6/30/20 at ¶ 8 [underline
added].) Plaintiff’s notice of hearing
date and briefing schedule for the instant motion specifies that the opposition
must be filed and served by May 15, 2025 and that the reply must be filed and
served by May 21, 2025. (Notice of
Hearing and Briefing Schedule at p.2:7-9.)
Plaintiff filed her reply on May 28, 2025 –
seven days after the due date for Plaintiff’s reply pursuant to the briefing
schedule that the Court set. Thus, the
reply is untimely. Plaintiff’s Counsel
states in his May 30, 2025 declaration that this late filing was in error. (Shapiro 5/30/25 Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) In its discretion, the Court will consider the
untimely reply on this occasion. However,
any future untimely filings may be disregarded or stricken.
Plaintiff’s Inadvertent Dismissal of Doe
Defendants
Though not raised by the parties or by third-party
InterMountain, Plaintiff – in what appears to be an inadvertent error –
dismissed various defendants through the filing of the operative SAC.
“It has long been the rule that an amended
complaint that omits defendants named in the original complaint operates as a
dismissal as to them.” (Fireman's
Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135,
1142; see also Browner v. Davis (1860) 15 Cal. 9, 11-12; Lamoreux v.
San Diego & Arizona Eastern Ry. Co. (1957) 48 Cal.2d 617, 627 overruled
on other grounds by Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (2012) 55
Cal.4th 291; Kuperman v. Great Republic Life Ins. Co. (1987) 195
Cal.App.3d 943, 947; Boonyarit v. Payless Shoesource, Inc. (2006) 145
Cal.App.4th 1188, 1193; Mac v. Minassian (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 510, 517.)
Here, Plaintiff named a total of eleven
Defendants in the First Amended Complaint; the two originally named Defendants that
appeared in the caption of the First Amended Complaint (Saharan and LNS) and
the nine additional Defendants who were subsequently added by way of Doe
Amendments (Hollywood Stay Hotel LLC, Cinema Spa Motel LLC, Rajesh Patel, AMI
Services Corp., Lark Motel LLC, Cahuenga Pass Hotel LLC, Travel Plaza Inn LLC,
Branco Motor Inn LLC, and Jashvanti Patel).
On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative SAC naming only
Defendants Saharan and LNS.
By naming only Defendants Saharan and LNS,
Plaintiff effectively dismissed without prejudice Defendants Hollywood Stay
Hotel LLC, Cinema Spa Motel LLC, Rajesh Patel, AMI Services Corp., Lark Motel
LLC, Cahuenga Pass Hotel LLC, Travel Plaza Inn LLC, Branco Motor Inn LLC, and
Jashvanti Patel from the action. (Fireman's
Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc., supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at
1143; see also Browner v. Davis, supra, 15 Cal. at 11-12; Lamoreux
v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Ry. Co., supra, 48 Cal.2d at 627; Kuperman v. Great
Republic Life Ins. Co., supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at 947; Boonyarit
v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at 1193; Mac v.
Minassian, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at 517.) This is relevant here because the instant
motion seeks to compel third-party InterMountain to provide documents relating
to communications and management of hotel employees between InterMountain and
Hollywood Stay LLC and between InterMountain and Rajesh Patel. However, because they are not named in the
operative SAC, Hollywood Stay LLC and Rajesh Patel are no longer Defendants in
the instant action. Plaintiff must properly
name Hollywood Stay LLC and Rajesh Patel as Defendants in the operative SAC in
order to establish good cause to compel InterMountain to produce the requested
documents. In addition, beyond the
discovery dispute at issue in the instant motion to compel, the previously
named Doe Defendants must be properly re-added to the operative complaint for
the Court to assert jurisdiction over them as parties to this action.
Based on the record and this instant motion,
Plaintiff appears to presume that Hollywood Stay LLC and Rajesh Patel are
parties to the action. Thus, it appears
that Plaintiff’s failure to name Hollywood Stay LLC and Rajesh Patel – and the
other seven Doe Defendants – in the SAC may have resulted from inadvertence.
Accordingly, Plaintiff must file and serve an
amended complaint properly naming all Defendants against whom Plaintiff intends
to file suit by no later than June 18, 2025.
Defendants Saharan, LNS, Hollywood Stay Hotel
LLC, Cinema Spa Motel LLC, Rajesh Patel, AMI Services Corp., Lark Motel LLC,
Cahuenga Pass Hotel LLC, Travel Plaza Inn LLC, Branco Motor Inn LLC, and
Jashvanti Patel must file and serve any responsive pleading to the amended
complaint by July 18, 2025.
Continuance of the Instant Motion to Compel
InterMountain’s Compliance with the Business Records Subpoena
“[A]ny party may
obtain discovery regarding any matters, not privileged, that is relevant to the
subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any
motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in
evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.) Thus, while relevance is a
possible ground for an objection, it is difficult to adequately justify
it. (See
generally Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d
210, 217.) “These rules are applied
liberally in favor of discovery, and (contrary to popular belief), fishing
expeditions are permissible in some cases.”
(Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546
[internal citation omitted].)
“However,
particularly when dealing with an entity which is not even a party to the
litigation, the court should attempt to structure discovery in a manner which
is least burdensome to such an entity.”
(Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 216, 222.) Thus, “[a]s
between parties to litigation and nonparties, the burden of discovery should be
placed on the latter only if the former do not possess the material sought
to be discovered. An exception to this may exist where a showing is made
the material obtained from the party is unreliable and may be subject to
impeachment by material in possession of the nonparty.” (Id. at p.225 [italics added].) To obtain documents from a third party
through a business records subpoena, a party must show good cause for the
requested documents. (Id. at
p.224.)
Here, Plaintiff seeks
from third-party InterMountain:
All COMMUNICATIONS
between INTERMOUNTAIN and HOLLYWOOD STAY LLC.
(Request No. 2.)
All COMMUNICATIONS
between INTERMOUNTAIN and any person concerning the HOLLYWOOD STAY HOTEL.
(Request No. 4.)
All
COMMUNICATIONS between INTERMOUNTAIN and Rajesh Patel.
(Request No. 6.)
All
emails to and from the following email address: r3realestate@gmail.com.
(Request No. 7.)
All DOCUMENTS related to the hiring and
training of hotel employees (full time, part time, and salaried) at any hotel,
motel, or any other business INTERMOUNTAIN manages for HOLLYWOOD STAY LLC.
(Request No. 10.)
All DOCUMENTS related to the hiring and
training of hotel employees (full time, part time, and salaried) at any hotel,
motel, or any other business INTERMOUNTAIN manages for Rajesh Patel.
(Request No. 11.)
With respect to each of these requests at
issue in the business records subpoena to InterMountain, Plaintiff claims that
good cause exists because the documents are relevant. However, for third parties – like
InterMountain – mere relevance alone is insufficient to support the good cause
needed to compel compliance with a business records subpoena. (Calcor
Space Facility, Inc., supra, 53
Cal.App.4th at p.225.)
Critically, Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why
these documents cannot be obtained from the Defendants or why these materials
from Defendants are unreliable and thus why documents from a third party are
needed for impeachment. Moreover, each
of the requests at issue do appear to be overbroad including all communications
– regardless of their relevance to Plaintiff’s claims – and unbounded by time
limit. Placing such discovery burdens on
third parties is improper. Moreover, based on the Court’s review of the parties’
meet and confer efforts, (See Shapiro Decl. ¶¶ 23-44, Exhs. 9-13), Plaintiff has
not provided any reason as to why the Court should impose the burden of such
extensive discovery on InterMountain, a third-party to the action.
The Court finds the parties’ meet and confer
efforts insufficient. Plaintiff and
InterMountain are to further meet and confer regarding these requests regarding
why Plaintiff needs InterMountain to produce said documents, and to narrow the
requests to a more reasonable scope. For
example, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s declaration identified that Hollywood Stay Hotel
LLC claims that it does not possess Plaintiff’s personnel file and that InterMountain
is in possession of Plaintiff’s personnel file.
(Shapiro Decl. ¶ 10, Exh.
3.) This would constitute good cause to
support compelling InterMountain to produce said file – if it does in fact have
Plaintiff’s personnel file – or attest that it is not in possession of Plaintiff’s
personnel file and why it is not in possession of Plaintiff’s personnel file.
Plaintiff and InterMountain are to file a
joint statement setting forth each of the requests as to which they have reached
agreement and what – if anything – is still at issue in the instant
motion. For each category remaining in
dispute, Plaintiff must identify:
(a) why Plaintiff cannot request and obtain
the records from Defendants, who are parties in this action,
(b) whether
Plaintiff requested the records in this category from Defendants,
(c) any reason(s) why Plaintiff is also asking
for the same records from non-party InterMountain,
(d) why Plaintiff believes that the records
produced by Defendants are incomplete and what records Plaintiff believes are
missing from Defendants’ production.
For each category remaining in dispute,
Non-Party InterMountain must state and explain why it still opposes the request
for this category of documents.
The parties are to file the joint statement by
no later than June 25, 2025.
InterMountain may file any supplemental
opposition not to exceed 3 pages by June 25, 2025.
The instant motion to compel InterMountain’s
compliance with the business records subpoena is CONTINUED TO July
16, 2025 at 10:00 am.
Court Clerk to give notice.