Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 19TRCV01131, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19TRCV01131 Hearing Date: September 19, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, September 19, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 4
PROCEEDINGS
Janice Wise v. James Obradovich, et al.
19TRCV01131
James Obradovic’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two
James Obradovic’s Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three
TENTATIVE RULING
James Obradovic’s Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, are granted.
Background
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on December 23, 2019. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff originally hired her son, Matt Wise, to be the general contractor on a home remodel project. However, upon threats by Defendant James Obradovic that Matt Wise had improperly hired away Defendant’s sub-contractors, Plaintiff was coerced into hiring Defendant James Obradovic as the general contractor. Defendant, ultimately, performed defective work. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Contract; 2. Fraudulent Concealment; 3. Fraud; 4. Negligent Representation; 5. Negligence; 6. Violation of Business & Professions Code 7150, et seq.; 7. Financial Elder Abuse. Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint naming Matt Wise as well as numerous sub-contractors as cross-defendants.
Motions to Compel
CCP § 2030.290 states: “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply…The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(b).)
CCP § 2031.300 states: “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2031.300(b)).
On January 21, 2022, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to serve responses to the subject written discovery requests. (Decl., Robert J. Olson).
Thus, the motions to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses, without objections, within 10 days of this date.
Sanctions
Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted. Sanctions are awarded in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the total amount of $1,265.00. The hourly rate sought of $225 is a reasonable rate. The time requested of 5 hours and the filing fees requested were reasonable. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of this date.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.