Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV19545, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 20STCV19545    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jamie Ann Ivey, Sandra Dee Ivey, and James Edward Ivey, Jr. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Serrano Post Acute LLC (“Defendant”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. 

BACKGROUND

On January 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed: (1) a motion to compel Defendant’s responses to their Form Interrogatories, Set 2 and Special Interrogatories, Set 3 (the “Interrogatories Motion”); (2) a motion to compel Defendant’s responses to their Requests for Production (“the “RFP Motion”); and (3) a motion to deem their Requests for Admissions, Set 1 admitted by Defendant (the “RFA” Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). 

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2033.280, subdivision (a), where requests for admission are propounded on a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the requests.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The court must grant a motion to have admission requests deemed admitted where responses have not been served prior to the hearing, or, if such responses were served, they were not in substantial compliance with CCP section 2033.220.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion.  (Id.; see Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31-32.)

Under CCP section 2030.290, subdivision (b), when a party directs interrogatories towards a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.  (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  

Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.  (Sappleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

            Plaintiffs served the discovery requests at issue on October 3, 2022.  (Declaration of Joanna A. Hutchins (“Hutchins Decl.”) ¶ 3, Exhibits B-D.)  Despite multiple extensions, the only responses Defendant served before Plaintiffs filed the Motions were unverified RFA responses, which were served on January 13, 2023.  (Hutchins Decl. ¶ 9.) 

            Defendant provides evidence that it provided amended, verified RFA responses on March 2, 2023.  (Declaration of Zachary Remijas (“Remijas Decl.”) ¶ 13.)  Defendant also acknowledges that it has not yet provided responses to the other sets of discovery at issue in the Motions and indicates that it plans to submit responses before the time of the hearing.  (See Remijas Decl. ¶ 18.)  As of the time Plaintiffs filed their reply briefs (collectively, the “Replies”) on March 8, 2023, Defendant’s RFP and Interrogatories responses remained outstanding.  The RFA Reply concedes that the RFA Motion is moot and indicates that Plaintiffs have withdrawn their corresponding request for monetary sanctions in light of their receipt of Defendant’s verified responses.

            In light of the foregoing, the RFA Motion is MOOT.  The RFP and Interrogatories Motions are GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to provide responses within 20 days of this order.

Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions in connection to the Motions in the total amount of $2,905.50.  (Hutchins Decl. ¶ 12.)  This amount represents: (1) four hours preparing the moving papers at a rate of $450 per hour; (2) an anticipated one hour reviewing opposition papers and drafting reply papers; (3) an anticipated one hour preparing for and attending the hearing; and (4) $205.50 in filing fees.   (See Hutchins Decl. ¶ 11.) 

            In light of Plaintiffs withdrawing their request for sanctions in connection to the RFA Motion, the Court awards Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $1,037, which represents two hours preparing the Interrogatories and RFP Motions at a rate of $450 per hour and filing fees in the amount of $137.  (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)  This amount is to be paid within 20 days of this order.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person.  The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.  This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

    Dated this 16th day of March 2023