Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV38516, Date: 2024-06-24 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: 22STCV38516    Hearing Date: June 24, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

BACKGROUND

            This case arises from a complaint filed by Plaintiff Roie Maor (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Eve M. Aron (“Defendant”) on December 9, 2022.  The complaint asserts breach of contract and various other causes of action stemming from an agreement in which Plaintiff purportedly agreed to lend money to Defendant, who in turn, allegedly agreed to use the funds to buy and resell horses for profit.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

The Court considered the moving papers filed.  The motion is unopposed.

The Court initially notes that the purported “Reply re Defendant’s Non-Opposition to the Motion to Compel Further” was not necessary and is not being considered by the Court.

Under 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).)  A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product.  (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  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.)  “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories (“SIs”) upon Defendant on November 14, 2023.  (Declaration of Richard B. Rudolph in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to SIs (“Rudolph SIs Decl.”), ¶ 3.)  Defendant did not serve responses to the SIs as of the date of filing of this motion on March 26, 2024.  (Rudolph SIs Decl., ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the SIs.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the SIs is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the SIs, without objections, within 20 days of this order.  Since no request for sanctions was made in the motion, no sanctions are imposed.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

The Court considered the moving papers filed.  The motion is unopposed.

As noted above, 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).)  A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product.  (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  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.)  “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories (“FIs”) upon Defendant on November 14, 2023.  (Declaration of Richard B. Rudolph in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to FIs (“Rudolph FIs Decl.”), ¶ 3.)  Defendant did not serve responses to the FIs as of the date of filing of this motion on March 25, 2024.  (Rudolph FIs Decl., ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the FIs.  The Court notes that although the motion was filed as a Motion to Compel Further, it is in fact a Motion to Compel initial responses.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the FIs is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the Fis, without objections, within 20 days of this order.  Since no request for sanctions was made in the motion, no sanctions are imposed.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

The Court considered the moving papers filed.  The motion is unopposed.

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand.  (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, Plaintiff served Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) upon Defendant on November 14, 2023.  (Declaration of Richard B. Rudolph in Support of Motion to Compel Responses to RFPs (“Rudolph RFPs Decl.”), ¶ 3.)  Defendant did not serve responses to the RFPs as of the date of filing of this motion on March 25, 2024.  (Rudolph RFPs Decl., ¶ 8.)  Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses to the RFPs. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the RFPs is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the RFPs, without objections, together with all responsive documents within 20 days of this order.  Since no request for sanctions was made in the motion, no sanctions are imposed.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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 24th day of June, 2024