Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00625, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00625    Hearing Date: February 7, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      February 7, 2024                                             TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         GINA LIZANO, an individual, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION; STARBUCKS LLC; MONTEREY PARK MARKET PLACE SHOPPING CENTER, STARBUCKS LOCATED AT 4000 MARKET PLACE DR. 1A, MONTEREY PARK, CA 91755; PROPERTY OWNERS OF 400 MARKET PLACE DR. 1A, MONTEREY PARK, CA 91755; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00625

MOTION TO COMPEL

MOVING PARTY:               MPRP, TRACT 3, LLC (“MPRP”) and Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              MPRP’s motions filed on January 10, 2024

                                                 Starbucks’s motions filed on January 16, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

            MPRP and Starbucks separately move for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to their requests for the production of documents, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Gina Lizano’s (“Plaintiff”) slip-and-fall claim. Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2021, she tripped and fell at a Starbucks located at 4000 Market Place Dr. 1A, Monterey Park, California 91775. Plaintiff filed this complaint on March 21, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

MPRP’s motions for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide discovery responses are GRANTED.

            Starbucks’s motions for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide discovery responses are GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions totaling $630 to MPRP and $690 to Starbucks.

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).) The same applies to a party that fails to respond to a request for document production. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            MPRP and Starbucks separately move for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to their requests for the production of documents, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories.

            MPRP provides that it served its discovery requests on Plaintiff on August 29, 2023. (D’Andrea Decl. ¶ 6.) MPRP provides that discovery responses were due on October 2, 2023. (Id. ¶ 8.) MPRP provides that it attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel but received no response. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) MPRP provides it has not received any discovery responses. (Id. ¶ 15.)

            Starbucks provides it served its discovery requests on September 25, 2023. (Baxter Decl. ¶ 4.) Starbucks provides that it attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel but never received any discovery responses. (Id. ¶¶ 5-8.)

            Both MPRP and Starbucks have demonstrated that they served discovery requests on Plaintiff, but Plaintiff failed to provide any responses. MPRP and Starbucks motions for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide discovery responses are granted.

            MPRP’s motion for sanctions is granted for three hours – one hour for each motion – at a rate of $190 (D’Andrea Decl. ¶ 16) plus a $60 filing fee for a total of $630. Starbucks motion for sanctions is granted for three hours at a rate of $210 plus a $60 filing fee for a total of $690. The sanctions are ordered against Plaintiff’s counsel.

CONCLUSION

MPRP’s motions for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide discovery responses are GRANTED.

            Starbucks’s motions for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide discovery responses are GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions totaling $630 to MPRP and $690 to Starbucks.

            Plaintiffs are ordered to produce code compliant verified responses without objections within 20 days’ notice of this ruling.

            Moving Party to provide notice.

Dated:   February 7, 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