Judge Joel L. Lofton, Case Number: 23AHCV02167, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02167, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02167 Hearing Date: July 3, 2024 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: July 3, 2024 TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE: NGUYEN, et al. v. VILLA, et al.

CASE NO.: 23AHCV02167

PLAINTIFF JENNY NGUYEN’S:

1. MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MARIO ALBERTO VILLA’s RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (2972);

2. MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SARKIS BATANIAN’s RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (9322); and

3. MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MARIO ALBERTO VILLA’s RESPONSE TO PRODUCION DEMAND (0817).

PLAINTIFF TRON THI HA’S:

1. MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MARIO ALBERTO VILLA’S RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATIRES (7452); and

2. MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SARKIS BATANIAN’S RESPONDE TO FORM INTERROGATOIRES (4049).

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jenny Nguyen and Plaintiff Tron Thi Ha

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

SERVICE: May 10 and 15, 2024 (Plaintiff Nguyen’s motions); May 14 and 21, 2024 (Plaintiff Ha’s motions)

OPPOSITION: Unopposed

REPLY: NA

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff Nguyen moves for a court order compelling:

1. Defendant Villa to provide a verified response to Form Interrogatories (Set No. One) and monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,560 against Defendant Villa and his counsel, Homan, Stone & Rossi by Ted L. Travis (2972);

2. Defendant Batanian to provide a verified response to Form Interrogatories (Set No. One) and monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,560 against Defendant Batanian and his counsel, Homan, Stone & Rossi by Ted L. Travis (9322);

3. Defendant Villa to provide a verified response to Production Deman (Set No. One) and monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,560 against Defendant Villa and his counsel Homan, Stone & Rossi by Ted L. Travis (0817).

Plaintiff Ha moves for a court order compelling:

BACKGROUND

This is an action for personal injuries and damages arising from an automobile accident on January 7, 2022. Plaintiffs Jenny Nguyen (“Nguyen”) and Tron Thi Ha (“Ha”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint against Defendants Mario Alberto Villa (“Villa”) and Sarkis Batanian (“Batanian”) (collectively “Defendants”) on September 19, 2023. Defendants filed their Answer on December 22, 2023.

Plaintiffs filed a combined five motions to compel discovery which are before this court now. Out of the five motions, Plaintiff Nguyen filed three and Plaintiff Ha filed two. No opposition has been filed to any of the motions as of June 28, 2024.

TENTATIVE RULING

The court grants the motions to compel discovery. Defendants are ordered to serve complete, verified responses, without objection, within 20 days of this order.

The court grants Plaintiff Nguyen’s request for monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,110 (3.5 hours x $300, plus $60) and Plaintiff Ha’s request for monetary sanctions in the total amount of $810 (2.5 hours x $300, plus $60). Defendants and their attorney of record Homan, Stone & Rossi by Ted L. Travis are ordered to pay Plaintiffs within 30 days of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290 (b), 2031.300(b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).)

Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Sanctions may be awarded even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (CRC Rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Here, the court finds that Defendants failed to serve responses to the discovery requests after several extensions to do so. (See generally the respective declarations of Donald T. Dunham.) Therefore, all objections to the requests are waived. Furthermore, monetary sanctions are warranted. Plaintiffs’ counsel requests $1,560 for each motion, representing three hours incurred (one hour to draft, one hour to review any opposition and draft a reply, and one hour to attend hearing) at counsel’s hourly rate of $300, plus the $60 filing fee. The request for monetary sanctions is granted in a reduced amount because the motions are unopposed and because this is a straightforward matter involving a single hearing. Therefore, the court grants Plaintiff Nguyen’s request in the total amount of $1,110 (3.5 hours x $300, plus $60) and Plaintiff Ha’s request in the total amount of $810 (2.5 hours x $300, plus $60).

CONCLUSION

The court grants the motions to compel discovery. Defendants are ordered to serve complete, verified responses, without objection, within 20 days of this order.

Dated: July 3, 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