Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00842, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00842    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      May 2, 2024                           TRIAL DATE: January 28, 2025

CASE:                         ARMINE VARTANYAN v. LAW OFFICE OF MARILYN SMITH, et al. 

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00842

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Armine Vartanyan

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Marlyn M. Smith

SERVICE:                              Filed and served January 23, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant Marilyn Smith to provide responses to form interrogatories, set one.

BACKGROUND

This is a legal malpractice case. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants Marilyn Smith and Law Office of Marilyn Smith for legal malpractice.

On April 5, 2023, Smith filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for breach of written contract, account stated, common count – services rendered upon request, and common count – quantum meruit.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one is MOOT.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant Smith represents that responses to the subject discovery were served on March 1, 2024. (Schneider Decl., ¶2, Exh. 1.) Thus, the motion is MOOT.

            Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $518.91 against Smith based on two to three hours and the assistance of a licensed attorney to research and prepare the instant motion at a cost of $450.00, the motion filing fee of $61.65 plus e-filing fees of $7.26. (Vartanyan Decl., ¶5.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), provides a court shall impose sanctions against a party who successfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response 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.

Further, under CRC, Rule 3.1348(a), the Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.

Defendant Smith opposes the imposition of sanctions on the grounds that her counsel was responsible for the tardy service of responses and Plaintiff did not request fees against counsel as due process requires. Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is self-represented and does not provide any evidence of fees for assistance from an attorney.

Defendant’s counsel states the following: “The failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories set one is entirely attributable to me, and not to Defendant. My failure was due to my not checking my post office box for discovery served by Plaintiff. I had no expectation that discovery would be received in this matter, as I had requested that Plaintiff serve and deliver all documents in this case by electronic mail and not by United States mail. A true and correct copy of my March 15, 2023 letter requesting same is attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference. This is the first time that a party has not complied with such a request, so I was not expecting to receive service of form interrogatories by United States mail.” (Scheider Decl., ¶3.)

Based on defense counsel’s representations, the Court finds the imposition of sanctions against Defendant would be unjust and would only be justified against Defendant’s counsel. Plaintiff has not sought sanctions against defense counsel as required by CCP § 2023.040. Accordingly, sanctions are denied.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one is MOOT.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Smith is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   May 2, 2024                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org