Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV46192, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46192    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Introduction

On December 3, 2020, Plaintiff Erdenesuvd Jargalsaikhan filed this action against Defendant Nour Barouni, for injuries arising from a December 13, 2018 motor vehicle accident.    

On December 8, 2022, Defendant filed these motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Set One of Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents.  In the notices of motion, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

The motions are unopposed.

Legal Standards

A.    Initial Discovery Responses

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).)  ¿Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

B.     Sanction

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) 

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.

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).)¿¿

Discussion

A.    Defendant’s Discovery Requests

Defendant served the at-issue discovery requests on Plaintiff, June 10, 2022.  Responses were due July 12, 2022 but Plaintiff did not provide responses.  On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff requested an extension to provide responses to Defendant’s discovery requests.  However, Plaintiff has yet to provide responses to the at-issue discovery requests.  (See Gonzalez Decls.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for production are waived. 

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order directing Plaintiff to provide responses to Set One of Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents. 

B.     Sanctions 

Defendant requests imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff ¿in the total amount of $1530 ($510 for each motion to compel).  The request is GRANTED.  The Court imposes monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $780 against Plaintiff, consisting of 4 hours at Defense Counsel’s hourly rate of $150 and $180 in filing fees. .

Conclusion

The motion is granted.   

Plaintiff Erdenesuvd Jargalsaikhan is ordered to provide verified responses to Set One of Defendant Nour Barouni’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents, and to produce all documents in her possession, custody, or control which are responsive to the Demand for Production of Documents within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

The Court orders Plaintiff Erdenesuvd Jargalsaikhan to pay monetary sanctions of $780 to Defendant, by and through Defendant’s counsel, within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.¿¿ 

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 28th day of April 2023

II.        MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

            Introduction

            On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff Erdenesuvd Jargalsaikhan’s counsel, Michael P. Green of Joseph Farzam Law Firm, filed this Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. 

            Legal Standards

            California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). 

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.  (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) 

            Discussion

            Michael P. Green seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Erdenesuvd Jargalsaikhan on the following grounds: “Plaintiff has completely disappeared and unable to inform our office of changes in contact numbers and address, making it impossible for us to zealously represent her interests. For several months, our office has attempted to contact Plaintiff thru all known telephone numbers, addresses and email addresses to establish communication with Plaintiff, but have been unsuccessful.”  (MC-052.) 

Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted.  (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)

Counsel’s Motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.  Although trial is set for May 15, 2023, the Court finds that no prejudice will result from granting this motion as no opposition has been filed.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED and effective upon filing a proof of service showing service of this Order on Plaintiff.

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 28th day of April 2023

¿¿