Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV44732, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44732    Hearing Date: May 26, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for relief is GRANTED.

On 12/8/2021, Plaintiff Christopher Callahan (Plaintiff) filed suit against the Wags Club, LLC (Defendant), alleging: (1) failure to pay wages; (2) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wage; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) failure to pay wages due upon termination: waiting time penalties; (6) failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements; (7) unlawful/unfair business practice; (8) wrongful termination; (9) retaliation; (10) failure to reimburse business expenses; and (11) failure to deliver personnel file.

Now, Plaintiff moves for relief from objections.

Discussion

The Court previously continued this motion after it could not locate any memorandum of points and authorities or declaration setting forth substantive arguments as to why relief was warranted.

Now, having reviewed the motion, the Court agrees that relief is warranted.

CCP § 2031.300(a) states in part: "The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect."

In his motion, Plaintiff submitted evidence that he has since responded to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Roven Decl., Exh. 1.) Moreover, Plaintiff submitted evidence that his failure to timely respond to Defendant’s discovery was a result of his counsel’s failure to properly calendar the last day to respond to Defendants’ written discovery requests.  (Roven Decl., ¶ 3.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses are not code compliant, that counsel’s professional incompetence does not qualify for relief, and that a strict-liability approach to relief should be applied equally to the parties.

As for the first contention, to be eligible for relief, Plaintiff must first show that he served discovery responses in substantial compliance with the pertinent sections of the CCP. With respect to interrogatories, a party may respond by any of the following: (1) an answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) an exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; and (3) an objection to a particular interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210.) Similarly, with respect to requests for production of documents, a party may respond by any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the inspection demand; and (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (CCP § 2031.210.)

Here, while the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s response to RFP Nos. 35, 42, 43, and 45 should more clearly state if any responsive documents exist at this time, and that Plaintiff should have clarified whether the identified documents are all of the responsive documents, Plaintiff’s responses are still substantially code-compliant. (St. Mary v. Superior Ct. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 782) (“Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance, technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance. [Citation.] Substance prevails over form.”)

            As for the second contention, the Court disagrees with Defendant’s contention that counsel’s admission of a calendaring error is insufficient to qualify for relief from waiver. Counsel’s conduct falls within the meaning of an inadvertent mistake, and Plaintiff would be greatly prejudiced if he was unable to object to any discovery based on his counsel’s own error.

            Finally, as for the third contention, the Court’s ruling vacating the order compelling arbitration was not based on a strict-liability approach to relief. Rather, that ruling was mandated by California law. As such, the Court had no discretion to provide Defendant with the relief it sought. Here, by contrast, as Defendant itself concedes, relief is entirely in the Court’s discretion.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for relief is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.