Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00527, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21TRCV00527 Hearing Date: August 25, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, August 25, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 9
PROCEEDINGS
Ella Sims v. Purnell Williams, et al.
21TRCV00527
Ella Sims’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
TENTATIVE RULING
Ella Sims’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Request for Sanctions is moot, in part, and granted, in part.
Background
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 21, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. The action involves the parties’ purchase of real property located at 10203 South Dixon Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90303. The subject purchase was intended by Plaintiff and Defendant Williams to be a joint investment. Plaintiff would live in Unit #2 of the Property and Defendant Williams would live in Unit #3. In April 2013, Defendant Williams requested that Plaintiff temporarily deed her interest in the Property to Defendant Williams for the purpose of enabling Defendant Williams to refinance the Property. Defendant Williams agreed to refinance the Property in his own name alone and later reconvey to Plaintiff her interest in the property, but Defendant never reconveyed Plaintiff’s interest. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Declaratory Relief; 2. Quiet Title; 3. Breach of Contract - Specific Performance; 4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 5. Constructive Trust; 6. Accounting; 7. Fraud; 8. IIED.
Motion 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 October 26, 2021, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, upon Defendant. Defendant failed to serve responses to the subject written discovery requests. (Declaration, Mark J. Sarni, ¶¶ 2-3.) On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Receipt of Non-Opposition. However, within this document, Plaintiff acknowledged that on August 20, 2022, Defendant served responses to the discovery items at issue in this motion. Plaintiff apparently believes that the discovery responses are deficient. However, any impropriety of the discovery responses would be the subject of a motion to compel further responses, after the parties, of course, engage in the mandatory meet and confer process.
Thus, the motion to compel discovery responses is moot.
Sanctions
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted. Responses were only served after the motion was filed. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).
Sanctions are awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $1,110.00. The hourly rate sought of $350 is a reasonable rate. The time allotted for preparation and appearance was 3 hours. Plaintiff is awarded $60 in filing fees. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of this date
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.