Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24BBCV00474, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24BBCV00474 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
stefanie
imparato,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. lakeview
hospice care, inc.,
et al., Defendants. |
Case
No.: 24BBCV00474 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: motion to compel discovery responses; requests for sanctions |
On March 21,
2025, Plaintiffs Stefanie Imparato, Jason Jones, and SBRJ Inc. (“Plaintiffs”)
filed a single motion to compel initial responses from Cross-Complainants
Jeramie Tibon, Josel Cardenas, and K and S Hospice, Inc. (“Cross-Complainants”)
for: (1) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), set one Nos. 1-6 against Joel
Cardenas; (2) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one Nos. 1-18
against Joel Cardenas; (3) SROG Nos. 1-6 against Jeramie Tibon; (4) RPD Nos.
1-18 against Jeramie Tibon; (5) SROG Nos. 1-6 against K&S Hospice; and (6)
RPD Nos. 1-18 against K&S Hospice.
On January 7,
2025, Plaintiffs served on Cross-Complainants the discovery requests, such that
responses were due by February 6, 2025. Plaintiffs
argues that their counsel contacted defense counsel for responses, but defense
counsel stated they would not be responding to the discovery on behalf of
K&S Hospice as it was not a party to the complaint (though it is a
Cross-Complainant for a cross-complaint in this action). (Mot. at 3:18-25.) As of the filing of the motions, Plaintiffs state
that they have not received responses from Cross-Complainants.
On May 23, 2025,
Cross-Complainants filed an opposition brief.
They state that they served verified responses on May 23, 2025. They acknowledge that their discovery
responses were untimely but explain that they had difficulty contacting their
prior attorney Chayanm Garcia, Esq. and discovered that he had passed away on
March 30, 2025. They state that their
current counsel substituted into the action on April 15, 2025 and their new
counsel required time to familiarize themselves with the case and prepare
discovery responses.
By way of
background, Tibon, Cardenas, and K&S were initially represented by
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Ramo.
(See 6/25/24 Answer.) On July 15,
2024, Chayanm Garcia substituted in as counsel.
On April 15, 2025, Michael J. Worth of Buchalter, APC substituted in as
counsel as is currently representing Cross-Complainants.
On May 30, 2025,
Plaintiffs filed a reply brief. Plaintiffs argue that Cross-Complainants chose
to substitute in Mr. Garcia over their prior counsel who were in settlement
discussions with Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Plaintiffs argue that the opposition is vague as to how long
Cross-Complainants were trying to get in contact with Mr. Garcia. While Plaintiffs acknowledge that they
received discovery responses, they argue that they are still entitled to
sanctions.
As responses
were provided, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to the SROG and RPD is
denied.
Plaintiffs
request sanctions against Cross-Complainants in the amount of $2,310 (= 3 hours
on the motion + 1.5 additional hours to prepare the reply brief + 1 additional
hour to appear for the hearing at $420/hour, plus $60 in filing fees). In light of the circumstances involving
Cross-Complainants’ prior counsel and the recent substitution of their counsel,
as well as Cross-Complainants responses to the discovery at issue, the request
for sanctions is denied. As this is the
first discovery motion filed with the Court, the Court declines to impose
sanctions. The parties should ensure
that they engage in good faith and cooperative discovery efforts with current
counsel.
Plaintiffs shall provide
notice of this order.
DATED: June 6, 2025 ___________________________
John
J. Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court