Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV26362, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26362    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants

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

BACKGROUND

This matter arises out of an employment relationship.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivisions (b) and (c); (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) failure to provide personnel records in violation of Labor Code section 1198.5; (5) failure to provide wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226, subdivision (b); and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed eight motions to compel Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1 and Requests for Production, Set 1 (collectively, the “Motions”).

DISCUSSION

            Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“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).)  

            The relevant discovery requests were served on September 13, 2022 and September 23, 2022.  (See Declaration of Ryan D. Handley (“Handley Decl.) ¶¶ 4, 6.)  As of the filing of the Motions, Plaintiff had not received responses from Defendants.  (Handley Decl. ¶ 11.) 

On September 30, 2022, Moving Defendants removed this matter to federal court.  On December 8, 2022, the United States District Court for the Central District issued a remand order (the “Remand Order”).  On February 8, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion to stay this matter pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of their appeal of the Remand Order.  On March 6, 2023 the Court issued a stay pending the resolution of Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration (the “Arbitration Motion”).  On March 16, 2023, the Court denied the Arbitration Motion and lifted the stay. 

The state court's jurisdiction is suspended when the defendant seeking removal gives notice to the state court clerk, and it is reacquired when the district court clerk gives notice to the state court clerk in the form of a certified copy of the remand order.  (Spanair S.A. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 348, 356.)   When the state court regains jurisdiction, responsive deadlines resume.  (See Dauenhauer v. Superior Court In and For Sonoma County (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 22, 26.)

Defendants argue that state court timelines for responsive pleadings are the only deadlines that restart once a matter is remanded from federal court to state court.  Defendants, however, provide no authority for this proposition; further, the Court is not bound by federal rules governing federal court procedure for matters that were removed to federal court from state court.  Absent authority providing otherwise, the Court finds that Defendants’ discovery responses remain outstanding.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motions.  Defendants are ordered to serve responses, without objections, within 20 days of this order.  Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.[1]

             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 22nd day of March 2023