Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV08781, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV08781 Hearing Date: February 27, 2023 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
FRED WAI HUNG YUE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
PC PALACES, INC., et al.,
Defendants. | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | CASE NO.: 20STCV08781
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. February 27, 2023 |
INTRODUCTION
On March 3, 2020, plaintiffs Fred Wai Hung Yue (“Yue”) and Tzu-Fi Chu (“Chu”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against PC Palaces, Inc. (“PC Palaces”), Xuong Ha (“Ha”), Ruben Esparza (“Esparza”), Phu Mang Phang (“Phang”), David Aguilar (“Aguilar”), and William Tom and Gertrude Tom as the trustees of the Tom Family Trust. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, and false imprisonment. The action arises from an alleged shooting that occurred on March 9, 2018, at PC Palaces, a restaurant and karaoke bar in South El Monte, California.
On October 17, 2022, PC Palaces and Phang (collectively, “Defendants”) filed the instant motions to compel Chu to (1) produce responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, (2) compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, (3) and to produce responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, or Deem the Requests Admitted. No opposition has been filed.
As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ motion to compel responses to all interrogatories is procedurally improper.¿ That motion combines a motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and a motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, when each should have been filed separately.¿ Nonetheless, the Court will reach the merits.
LEGAL STANDARD
If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.280, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)
¿ If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, 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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿¿ In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
Here, counsel for PC Palaces served the at-issue written discovery requests on Chu’s counsel on May 20, 2022. (Taylor Decls., ¶ 3.) Responses were due by August 12, 2022. (Taylor Decls., Ex. B.) However, despite granting numerous extensions, Chu never provided any responses. Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for admission are waived.¿
As Defendants properly served the discovery requests and Chu failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to an order compelling Chu to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Chu. In addition, Defendants are entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted against Chu.¿
Monetary Sanctions
Defendants request monetary sanctions in the amount of $872.50 for the Motion to Produce Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One; $872.50 for the Motion to Produce Responses to Requests for Production, Set One; and $872.50 for the Motion to Produce Responses to Requests for Admission, or to Deem the Requests Admitted. Defendants’ requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Chu and Chu’s counsel in the total reduced amount of $1,005.00 (3 hours at counsel for Defendants Sydney D. Taylor’s rate of $200.00; 1 hour at counsel for Defendants John W. Roddy’s rate of $225.00, and $180.00 in filing fees) to be paid within 30 days of being served with proof that the additional filing fee has been paid.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motions are granted. Plaintiff Tzu-Fei Chu is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories Set One, and to produce all documents in its possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One within 30 days of this order. Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff Tzu-Fei Chu.¿
The Court orders Plaintiff Tzu-Fei Chu and Plaintiff’s Counsel, Downtown L.A. Law Group, to pay $1,005.00 in monetary sanctions to Defendants be paid within 30 days of being served with proof that the additional filing fee has been paid.¿
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Dated this 23rd day of February 2023
|
|
| Hon. Kerry Bensinger Judge of the Superior Court
|