Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV19158, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant City of Los Angeles by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“LADWP”)

On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Money Damages, alleging what appears to be causes of action for Breach of Contract, Common Counts for Money had and received, Fraud, Identity Theft, Fraud and Negligence. On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion (the “Motion”). On May 17, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition to the Motion and on May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed her reply.

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.¿(CCP § 2030.290(b).)¿The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses or no verified responses have been served.¿¿All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.¿(Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

As a preliminary matter, it is disputed whether Plaintiff received LADWP’s response to the Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff argues that she never received a response to her discovery request and the opposition is untimely. Defendant argues that it did respond to the discovery request.

On December 26, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1, to LADWP (the “SIs”). (Granado Decl. ¶3.) LADWP received the SIs on December 29, 2023, by mail. (Id.) On February 05, 2024, LADWP emailed and mailed LADWP's Response to the SIs. (Id. at ¶4.) Defense counsel’s legal secretary declares that the response served by regular mail was never returned to LADWP as undeliverable by the Post Office. (Id. at ¶ 8.) She further states that the email services of the response on February 5, 2024, and February 15, 2024, went through without any issues as she never got any email notices that the emails were undeliverable. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Defendant’s new counsel, A.Voltaire Lazaro declares that there were no phone calls, emails or letters from Plaintiff confirming receipt of the emails sent by Anna Granado, and that there was no confirmation from Plaintiff that the response sent by mail was received at the mailing address of Plaintiff stated in her Special Interrogatories. (Lazaro Decl. ¶11; Exhibit 8 – Page 1 of Plaintiff’s Request for SIs. showing her email address and mailing address.) Defense counsel states that the next thing that came to the mail from Plaintiff was service of the Notice and Motion to Compel Response which she filed on March 5, 2024, and received by A. Voltaire Lazaro by mail on March 11, 2024. (Lazaro Decl. ¶ 12; Exhibit 3 – Mailed Meet and Confer Letter.)

The Court notes that LADWP’s evidence was sufficient to show that LADWP sent the response to Special Interrogatories, Set One. For instance, Defendant submitted the Proof of Service which shows that LADWP sent the document via email at rho.miles@yahoo.com and to 6073 Fragans Way Woodland Hills, CA 91367 on February 5, 2024. Moreover, LADWP also included two emails which show the response to the SIs was sent to Plaintiff. (Lazaro Decl. ¶ 4; Exhibit 2- Email to Plaintiff with Responses.)

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to Compel Initial Responses to the SIs as MOOT because LADWP has responded before the filing of the Motion.

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court