Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20STCV02787, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV02787    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: A

ALLEGATIONS:

Calin Keeley ("Keeley") filed suit against Mr. Build Construction and Electric Co. ("MBCEC"), Mr. Build Home Improvement Company ("MBHIC", and together with MBCEC, "Employer Defendants"), David Asulin ("Asulin"), and Mikhaila Bellenbaum ("Bellenbaum", and together with Asulin, "Individual Defendants") (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that she was formerly employed by Defendants, who committed violations of the California Labor Code, as well as assault, battery, sexual harassment, and retaliation on the basis of gender.

On May 5, 2021, this case and Case No. 19BBCV00163 were consolidated and assigned to this Court for all purposes, with this as the lead case.

Keeley filed a Complaint on January 22, 2020 alleging 19 causes of action: (1) Hostile Work Environment (Gov. Code, §12940(j)); (2) Sexual Harassment (Quid Pro Quo) in violation of FEHA; (3) Sexual Assault; (4) Battery; (5) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (L.C. §§204, 510, 1194, Wage Order 4-2001); (6) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (L.C. §§1194, 1197, 1197.1, Wage Order 4-2001); (7) Liquidated Damages for Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (L.C. §1194.2); (8) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks (L.C. §226.7, Wage Order 4-2001); (9) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks (L.C. §226.7, Wage Order 4-2001); (10) Failure to Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements (L.C. §226); (11) Waiting-Time Penalties (L.C. §§201-203); (12) Failure to Reimburse Required Business Expenses (L.C. §2802, Wage Order 4-2001 §9); (13) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention; (14) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (15) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED"), (16) Violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Penal Code §502 et seq.); (17) Invasion of Privacy; (18) Conversion; and (19) Violations of Bus. & Prof., §17200.

In the consolidated Case No. 19BBCV00163, MBHIC filed a Complaint on February 22, 2019, a First Amended Complaint ("MFAC") on May 10, 2019, and a Second Amended Complaint ("MSAC") on December 16, 2020 against Keeley, alleging nine causes of action: (1) Conversion; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Property Damage; (4) Trespass to Chattel; (5) Slander Per Se; (6) Libel; (7) Fraud; (8) Tortious Interference with Contract; and (9) Injunction).

HISTORY:

The Court received the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories filed by Plaintiff on July 13, 2022. The Court has not received any opposition or reply.

The Court received the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Matters Admitted filed by Plaintiff on July 13, 2022. The Court has not received any opposition or reply.

The Court received the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories filed by Plaintiff on July 13, 2022. The Court has not received any opposition or reply.

The Court received the Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production filed by Plaintiff on July 30, 2022. The Court has not received any opposition or reply.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Keeley moves to compel MBHIC to provide responses without objection to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Keeley also moves for associated sanctions in the amount of $410.

Keeley moves for an order deeming the truth of all matters specified in Requests for Admission, Set One admitted. Keeley also moves for associated sanctions in the amount of $410.

Keeley moves to compel MBHIC to provide responses without objection to Form Interrogatories General, Set Two. Keeley also moves for associated sanctions in the amount of $410.

Keeley moves to compel MBHIC to provide responses without objection to Requests for Production, Set Two. Keeley also moves for associated sanctions in the amount of $410.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel responses to interrogatories may be brought when a party fails to respond to written discovery. (CCP §2030.290.) No meet and confer is necessary when a party fails to respond to written discovery. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906.) An untimely responding party waives all objections, including privilege, unless they subsequently serve responses in substantial compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and demonstrate that their failure is the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP §2030.290(a).) Sanctions are mandatory for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the imposition of sanctions unjust. (CCP §2030.290(c).)

II.        MERITS

Compel Special Interrogatories

Keeley asserts that Special Interrogatories, Set One was served on MBHIC May 19, 2022 but that no responses have been received. (Decl. Mann, ¶¶ 2-3.)

No responses per the Civil Discovery Response having been received, the Court thus grants the instant motion pursuant to CCP §2030.290 and awards sanctions for Keeley against MBHIC in the amount of $410, representing an hour of attorney work at $350 plus the $60 filing fee. (Decl. Mann, ¶¶ 4-5.)

--

Compel Form Interogatories

Keeley asserts that Form Interrogatories General, Set Two was served on MBHIC on May 19, 2022 but that no responses have been received. (Decl. Mann, ¶¶ 2-3 (paragraph numbers have been corrected).)

No responses per the Civil Discovery Response having been received, the Court thus grants the instant motion pursuant to CCP §2030.290, and awards sanctions for Keeley against MBHIC in the amount of $410, representing an hour of attorney work at $350 plus the $60 filing fee. (Decl. Mann, ¶¶ 4-5 (paragraph numbers have been corrected).)

---

Request for Admissions - Deem Admitted

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

If a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the propounding party may move for a Court order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. (CCP §2033.280.) An untimely responding party waives all objections, including privilege, unless they subsequently serve responses in substantial compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and demonstrate that their failure is the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP §2030.290(a); CCP §2033.280(a).) The Court shall impose monetary sanctions for failure to timely respond to requests for admission unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust. (CCP §2033.280(c).) For untimely responses to Requests for Admission, the Court shall deem the Requests for Admission admitted unless the responding party serves a code compliant response prior to the hearing. (Ibid.) The Court must impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve timely Requests for Admission responses necessitated the motion. (Ibid.)

II.        MERITS

Keeley asserts that Requests for Admission, Set One was served on MBHIC on May 19, 2022 but that no responses have been received. (Decl. Mann, ¶¶ 2-3 (paragraph numbers have been corrected).)

No responses per the Civil Discovery Act having been made, the Court grants the motion and awards sanctions for Keeley against MBHIC in the amount of $410, representing an hour of attorney work at $350 plus the $60 filing fee. (Decl. Mann, ¶¶ 4-5 (paragraph numbers have been corrected).)

---

Compel Production

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to compel a demand for inspection may be brought where a responding party fails to timely respond to written discovery. (CCP § 2031.300.) No meet and confer is necessary where a party fails to respond to written discovery. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906.) Sanctions are mandatory for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the imposition of sanctions unjust. (CCP § 2031.300(c).)

II.        MERITS

Keeley asserts that Requests for Production, Set Two was served on MBHIC on May 19, 2022 but that no responses have been received. (Decl. Mann, ¶¶ 2-3.)

The Court thus grants the instant motion and awards sanctions for Keeley against MBHIC in the amount of $410, representing an hour of attorney work at $350 plus the $60 filing fee. (Decl. Mann, ¶¶ 5-6.)

---

RECOMMENDED RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Calin Keeley’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Matters Admitted; Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; and Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production came on regularly for hearing on August 12, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED TO KEELEY IN THE AMOUNT OF $410.

THE MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION MATTERS ADMITTED IS GRANTED, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED TO KEELEY IN THE AMOUNT OF $410.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED TO KEELEY IN THE AMOUNT OF $410.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION IS GRANTED, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED TO KEELEY IN THE AMOUNT OF $410.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  August 12, 2022                              _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles