Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00582, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 23BBCV00582    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

On March 5, 2025, Plaintiffs Joseph Daniel Burt and Denise Ann Parenteau (“Plaintiffs”) on behalf of Barbara Ann Burt filed a single motion to compel initial responses from Defendant ICC Convalescent Corp. dba Imperial Care Center (“Defendant”) for: (1) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; (2) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), set one; (3) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one; and (4) Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one. 

On September 14, 2024, Plaintiffs served on Defendant the discovery requests.  On October 29, 2024, Plaintiffs contacted Defendant to seek responses, to which Defendant responded that it had not received any discovery requests.  On October 29, 2024, Plaintiffs re-served the discovery on Defendant.  On December 13, 2024, Plaintiffs offered an extension until December 20, 2024 to obtain responses.  On December 20, 2024, Defendant served unverified responses and on December 23, 2024, Defendant served unverified supplemental responses.  On January 26, 2025, Plaintiffs requested verified responses, to which Defendant stated it would provide verifications.  As of the filing of the motions, Plaintiffs state that they have not yet received verified responses from Defendant. 

On March 21, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition brief.  Defendant explains that its counsel sent verifications to be filled out in December 2024 and January 2025, but that Defendant’s Administrator, Elvira Posada, did not sign the verifications, having confused this case with two other cases.  Defendant provides the verifications, showing they were signed by Ms. Posada on March 5 and 7, 2025.  (Opp., Ex. A.)  Defendant also states that its counsel’s assistant was out of the office the entire months of January and February 2025 due to the loss of her home in the Eaton Fire, such that the disruption caused a delay in obtaining Ms. Posada’s signed verifications to Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, RPD, and RFA is denied as moot, as verifications have been provided by Defendant.

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $3,391.00.  The request is denied as verifications were provided and Defendant has explained the delay in providing responses.  However, the Court would be inclined to impose sanctions on future discovery motions if discovery obligations are not complied with.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: April 11, 2025                                             ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court