Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV15284, Date: 2024-05-06 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.

This is a breach of contract action. On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs Andrew Donegan, DG LLC, and Travis Scott (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Samuel Luke Llaneras (“Llaneras”), Tharsys Da Silva (“Da Silva”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 100, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of good faith and fair dealing; (3) common counts; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud; (7) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (8) declaratory judgment.

On April 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant discovery motions. The motions are unopposed.

When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 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 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).)

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 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).)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for admission, the party propounding the request for admission may move for an order to deem the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction… on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiffs seek to compel responses from Llaneras in connection with Request for Admissions, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, purportedly served on Llaneras on March 1, 2024. (DiRisio Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. 5-6.) Plaintiffs also seek to compel responses from both Llaneras and Da Silva for Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, also purportedly served on March 1, 2024. (DiRisio Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 7.) Plaintiffs contend they attempted to meet and confer with Llaneras and Da Silva before bringing these motions, but to no avail. (DiRisio Decl., ¶¶ 6-11, Exs. 8-12.)

The Court finds numerous deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ motion. First, there are issues with the proofs of service. The proof of service for this motion fails to provide the electronic service address at which Llaneras and Da Silva were purportedly served. (Motion, p 24.) More seriously, the proofs of service for the underlying Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents also fail to specify the electronic service address at which they were purportedly served. (DiRisio Decl., Exs. 5-6.) There is also no proof of service at all attached to the Form Interrogatories. (DiRisio Decl., Ex. 7.)

Without proper proofs of service, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiffs properly served Llaneras and Da Silva. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.21, subd. (b); see also Dill v. Bergquist (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1442 fn. 15 [properly executed proofs of service shows the court that the plaintiff performed all acts necessary to effect service of process on defendant].) Llaneras and Da Silva’s lack of opposition also tends to weigh in favor of finding a lack of proper service here.

Second, Plaintiffs’ motion does not comply with the page limits of Rule 3.1113, subdivision (d), which limits memorandums of points and authorities for moving papers to 15 pages. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subd. (d).) Memoranda that exceed their specified page limit are treated the same as late-filed papers. (Id., subd. (g).) Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities is 20 pages long, and is therefore effectively late. If the proofs of service were not insufficient, this Court might have simply not considered the last five pages of the motion; however, in that of that other deficiency, the Court will not consider the motion at all.

Third, Plaintiffs improperly combined three discovery motions into one. Each of these underlying discovery requests requires its own motion hearing and the payment of a separate reservation fee; however, Plaintiffs only reserved a hearing date for one motion. (Motion, pp. 25-26.)

The Court further DENIES Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary sanctions because they did not prevail on their motions here. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c); Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

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