Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV00806, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00806    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: NCA

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Debra Biane, Gerald Biane, Josh Taylorson, and Sami-Joh Goldberg (collectively Plaintiffs) bring this action against Universal City Studios, LLC (Defendant). Plaintiffs allege that, on April 7, 2022, they were visitors at an amusement park owned and operated by Defendant. Plaintiffs further allege that a malfunction in the “Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey” ride caused the ride to stall, trapping Plaintiffs for approximately one hour. Plaintiffs allege they all sustained serious injury as a result of being trapped on the ride.

Before the Court are four motions, all brought by Defendant. Defendant moves to compel each Plaintiff to provide a Statement of Damages pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.11(b). Plaintiffs have filed no opposition to these motions. The Court notes that pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

When a complaint is filed in an action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the defendant may at any time request a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages being sought. The request shall be served upon the plaintiff, who shall serve a responsive statement as to the damages within 15 days. In the event that a response is not served, the defendant, on notice to the plaintiff, may petition the court in which the action is pending to order the plaintiff to serve a responsive statement. (C.C.P. § 425.11(b).)

II.                 MERITS

Discussion

Plaintiffs served Defendant with their First Amended Complaint on July 18, 2024. (Stephenson Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs’ FAC does not include a Statement of Damages. As such, on September 18, 2024, Defendant’s counsel served each Plaintiff with a request for Statement of Damages. (Stephenson Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.) The Court notes that Plaintiffs appear to be collectively represented by Chat Law Group, LLP (Chat) and Laiken Law Group, APC (Laiken). Defendant’s requests appear to have all been served on both Chat and Laiken. (Stephenson Decl. Exh. B, p. 25.)

Under C.C.P. § 425.11(b), Plaintiffs deadline to serve their statements of damages was October 7, 2024. On October 8, 2024, Defendant’s counsel, having received no responses, reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Stephenson Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. C.) Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the statements would soon be forthcoming and Defendant agreed to refrain from filing the instant motion. (Stephenson Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. C.) Despite being further assured on four separate occasions that Plaintiffs’ statements were forthcoming, Defendant remains without responses. (Stephenson Decl. ¶¶ 9-11, Exh. D.)

Given the foregoing, Defendant's unopposed motions to compel Plaintiffs’ Statement of Damages are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve their Statement of Damages on Defendant within 15 days.

Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $1,410.00 for each of the four motions. (Stephenson Decl. ¶ 12.) For reasons explained below, this request is DENIED.

C.C.P. § 425.11 contains no provision for sanctions, in contrast to statutes governing motions to compel responses to discovery demands. Further, Defendant does not cite to any authority which explicitly authorizes sanctions for motions brought pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.11. Instead, Defendant frames this request as one for discretionary discovery sanctions for general abuse of the discovery process under C.C.P. § 2023.030. Upon thorough search, the Court is unable to locate any authority which states that the provisions of C.C.P. § 2023.030 apply to motions to compel a Statement of Damages. As C.C.P. § 425.11 is not located within the ambit of the Civil Discovery Act, the Court does not view the discretionary provisions in C.C.P. § 2023.030 as applicable here.  

The most commonly cited authority in requesting sanctions in moving to compel a Statement of Damages is Argame v. Werasophon (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 616. Argame concerned a Plaintiff who failed to respond to three requests for Statement of Damages. (Argame supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at 618.) The plaintiff sought appeal of the trial court’s order granting three motions in limine to exclude evidence based on her failure to respond. (Id.) The Argame court reversed, finding C.C.P. § 425.11 did not authorize such motions. (Id.) In reversing the trial court ruling, the Argame court briefly addressed the costs of bringing a motion to compel.  In footnote three of its opinion, the court stated the following:

Obviously, defendants should not have been placed in a position where they were obligated to make a motion to obtain information to which they were lawfully entitled. Considering counsel's disregard for the requirements of section 425.11 displayed here, the court would have been justified in requiring Argame (or more appropriately her counsel) to reimburse defendants for costs incurred in making such a motion.

(Id. at 618, fn. 3.)

The Court interprets the above as supporting a trial court’s discretion to grant sanctions where a motion to compel a Statement of Damages has been granted and ignored by Plaintiff. In that instance, the Court can grant sanctions for violating the Court’s order.  Regardless, Argame concerned motions in limine and not motions to compel under C.C.P. § 425.1. As such, Argame’s statements regarding motions to compel remain dictum, rather than binding precedent. (See Estrada v. Superior Court (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 915, 924 [defining dictum as general observations of law which go beyond the facts and issues of the case.].)

In short, the Court finds there is no authority mandating sanctions in connection with Defendant’s motions. While the Court agrees with the reasoning in Argame, the fact remains that it does not provide this Court with authority to grant Defendant’s request. As such, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

--- 

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 

Universal City Studios, LLC’s Motions to Compel Statement of Damages came on regularly for hearing on January 3, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF DAMAGES ARE GRANTED.

PLAINTIFFS ARE ORDERED TO SERVE THEIR STATEMENTS OF DAMAGES ON DEFENDANT WITHIN 15 DAYS.

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: January 3, 2025                             _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles