Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STLC05525 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC05525, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05525 Hearing Date: February 15, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Juan Alvarez

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Juan Alvarez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company is ordered to submit verified responses, without objections, within ten (10) days of notice of this Order.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $500.00, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days notice of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 8, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 8, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff Juan Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants St. Paul Properties, Inc. (“St. Paul”), N.E.M. 579, Inc. (“N.E.M. 579”), and Nicolas Cavallo aka Nick Cavallo (“Cavallo”), (collectively “Defendants”), for an alleged violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51.

On October 12, 2022, Defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (erroneously sued as St. Paul Properties, Inc.) (“St. Paul”) filed an Answer to the Complaint. Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint correcting Defendant’s name to “St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company” on October 31, 2022.

On December 7, 2022, based on Plaintiff’s request, the Court entered default against Defendants Cavallo and N.E.M. 579. (12-7-22 Request for Entry of Default.) On the same day, after default was entered against Defendant N.E.M. 579, Defendant N.E.M. 579 filed an Answer, which was erroneously accepted by the Court.

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant St. Paul’s Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“Motion”). No opposition has been filed.

On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, adding Subway Restaurants, LLC (“Subway”) as Doe 1.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Special Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff propounded an initial set of Special Interrogatories, on Defendant St. Paul. (Mehrban Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Plaintiff has not received verified answers to the interrogatories. (Ibid. at ¶ 4.) On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel asking for responses by December 16, 2022, in order to avoid having to file a motion to compel responses. (Ibid. at ¶ 5, Ex. B.) As of the date of the instant Motion, no verified responses have been provided to Plaintiff. (Mot. p. 2.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has propounded special interrogatories on Defendant St. Paul and Defendant has not provided any responses. Although Plaintiff was not obligated to meet and confer with Defendant, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to reach an informal resolution by sending an email to defense counsel regarding the discovery request.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant St. Paul’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.

B. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct. Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Plaintiff requests $500.00 in sanctions for Defendant St. Paul’s failure to respond to the instant discovery request. (Mehrban Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that his hourly rate is $500.00 per hour, and he has “spent and will spend a cumulative total of no less than one hour in communicating with defense counsel regarding this motion, preparing the motion, and appearing at the hearing on the motion.” (Ibid.) Although no opposition has been filed, the Court finds an hour of time expended at a billing rate of $500.00 per hour to prepare the Motion and appear at the hearing reasonable.

The Court grants the Motion to Compel and accordingly, grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $500.00.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $500.00, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.