Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 20STCV49589 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

On December 29, 2020, Plaintiff Fatemeh Azima filed this action against defendants Rolling Hills Plaza, LLC (“RHP”) and American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (“AMC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability arising from injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained when a piece of tiled ceiling on Defendants’ premises broke and hit Plaintiff on the head and shoulders.

On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff served Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission on Defendants. After receiving two extensions to respond, Defendants served responses on July 8, 2022.

On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel Defendants’ further responses to the propounded discovery. The parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) and filed a Notice of Outcome and an IDC Joint Report on March 15, 2023, detailing the remaining discovery issues in dispute, Plaintiff’s agreement to sign Defendants’ proposed protective order, and Defendants’ agreement to provide verified further responses by March 29, 2023. On March 21, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation for a protective order.

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration indicating that she was proceeding with her motions as Defendants had yet to provide the verified responses. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to compel (1) RHP’s further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions, and (2) AMC’s further responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Admissions. The notices of the motions indicate that Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record.

As a threshold matter, RHP and AMC indicate in their respective separate statements in opposition to Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to Request for Admissions that further responses will be provided prior to the hearing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request For Admissions, Set One, From Defendant Rolling Hills Park, LLC and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request For Admissions, Set One, From Defendant American Multi-Cinema, Inc. are MOOT.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (a), 2031.310, subdivision (a), and 2033.290, subdivision (a), parties may move for a further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission where an answer to the requests are evasive or incomplete or where an objection is without merit or too general. A motion to compel further response to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c); 2033.290, subd. (c).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3).)

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.

With regard to a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310, subdivision (h) provides that sanctions shall be awarded against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Sanctions against counsel: The court in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 81 (Hennings) noted that discovery sanctions against an attorney are governed by a different standard than sanctions against a party:

By the terms of the statute, a trial court under section 2023.030(a) may not impose monetary sanctions against a party's attorney unless the court finds that the attorney “advised” the party to engage in the conduct resulting in sanctions. (§ 2023.030(a); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.) “Unlike monetary sanctions against a party, which are based on the party's misuse of the discovery process, monetary sanctions against the party's attorney require a finding the ‘attorney advis[ed] that conduct.’ ” (Ibid.) “It is not enough that the attorney's actions were in some way improper.” (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 200, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247 (Corns).) Because an attorney's advice to a client is “peculiarly within [his or her] knowledge,” the attorney has the burden of showing that he or she did not counsel discovery abuse. (Ibid.) Accordingly, when a party seeking sanctions against an attorney offers sufficient evidence of a misuse of the discovery process, the burden shifts to the attorney to demonstrate that he or she did not recommend that conduct. (Id. at pp. 200–201, 226 Cal.Rptr. 247; Ghanooni, at p. 262, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 501.)

C. Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”): Pursuant to Section 9, subdivision E of

the Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts for the County of Los Angeles, Central District (“Eighth Amended Hub Order”), Personal Injury (“PI”) Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.

After meeting and conferring about available dates for an IDC, the moving/propounding party shall reserve an IDC through [the Court Reservation System (“CRS”)] and provide notice of the reserved IDC to the opposing/responding party by filing and serving an Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts (LASC CIV 239) at least 15 court days before the IDC and attach the CRS reservation receipt as the last page. The IDC will not be “scheduled” by the court until the IDC Form is filed. The opposing/responding party may file and serve a responsive IDC Form at least 10 court days before the IDC. All parties shall briefly set forth their respective positions on the pending discovery issues on the IDC Form.

Plaintiff seeks RHP’s further response to Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) Nos. 3.1-3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.1-16.6, 16.9, 16.10 and 17.1.

In RHP’s separate statement, filed April 14, 2023, RHP indicates that further responses to FROG Nos. 3.1-3.6, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, 13.2 and 17.1 will be served prior to hearing and are thus MOOT. As to No. 3.7, RHP points out that Plaintiff does not explain why a further response is necessary. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to FROG No. 3.7.

The remaining FROGs at issue are Nos. 15.1, 16.1-16.6, 16.9, and 16.10. The Court addresses each in turn.

FROG No. 15.1: “Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each:

(a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense;

(b) state the names, ADDRESS, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts;

(c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things which support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.

RHP responded as follows: “Objection. This Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney work product doctrine in that it seeks disclosure of the impressions, conclusions and opinions of this Responding Party’s counsel as to what constitutes a “material allegation.” Moreover, this Interrogatory presupposes that Responding Party/Defendant has the burden of proving a denial of an allegation contained in Plaintiff’s complaint, a proposition which is contrary to existing law. Under existing law, Plaintiff has the burden of proving each and every fact necessary to sustain her recovery against this Responding Party. Responding Party is entitled to deny the unverified allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint generally and to put Plaintiff to her burden of proof without specifying what facts or evidence this Responding Party may choose to offer into evidence in response to the evidence offered by Plaintiff. To the extent that this Interrogatory attempts to require Responding Party to state, at this juncture of the lawsuit, what facts it may choose to rely upon, or the lack of facts it may choose to rely upon, as a legal basis for disputing Plaintiff’s right to recover, it is to require disclosure of the legal theories and the strategies of this Responding Party’s counsel. Those theories and strategies are protected by the attorney work product doctrine afforded under the California Code of Civil Procedure § 2018.030. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks a statement of the special or affirmative defenses the pleadings filed by Responding Party state those affirmative defenses and special defenses, and it is burdensome and oppressive to Responding Party to require a restatement of those pleaded facts. Those affirmative defenses were pled as a matter of right to preserve the right of Responding Party to raise known and unknown defenses. Furthermore, all affirmative defenses as alleged by Responding Party are made for the specific purpose of preserving the rights of Responding Party, and will be maintained until such time as discovery has been concluded. For example, Plaintiff has not yet appeared for her deposition. Further, Responding Party has not had the benefit of taking the depositions of witnesses and having an expert review Plaintiff’s claims. As a result, Responding Party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation and discovery of liability issues to enable it to respond to this Interrogatory at this time.

RHP’s response to No. 15.1 is not code compliant. As Plaintiff points out, FROG No. 15.1 is approved by the Judicial Council and is therefore presumptively proper. For this reason, and without further explanation from RHP, RHP’s contention that the No. 15.1 seeks information protected by the attorney work product doctrine is unfounded. Further, RHP’s objection that the interrogatory is unduly burdensome is without merit. “If an interrogatory asks the responding party to identify a document, an adequate response must include a description of the document. [Citation omitted].” (Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1190, quoting Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 293).

In response, RHP contends that its initial response “simply states that based on the lack of information in its possession, Defendant is unable to respond at this time.” However, RHP readily concedes in its initial response that it pled affirmative defenses to preserve their right to raise known and unknown defenses. RHP’s response is neither complete nor straightforward. RHP does not indicate in its initial response that it does not possess any information upon which it bases its denials. RHP is required to respond based on the information it currently possesses. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to FROG No. 15.1.

FROG No. 16.1: Do you contend that any PERSON, other than you or plaintiff, contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff? If so, for each PERSON:

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

FROG No. 16.2: Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the INCIDENT? If so:

(b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and

(c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

FROG No. 16.3: “Do you contend that the injuries or the extent of the injuries claimed by plaintiff as disclosed in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not caused by the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury:

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

FROG No. 16.4: “Do you contend that any of the services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not due to the INCIDENT? If so:

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

FROG No. 16.5: “Do you contend that any of the costs of services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed as damages by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were unreasonable? If so:

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

FROG No. 16.6: Do you contend that any part of the loss of earnings or income claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case was unreasonable or was not caused by the INCIDENT? If so:

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

RHP responded as follows to Nos. 16.1-16.6: “Objection. This Interrogatory calls for premature expert opinion. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory as it violates Instruction No. 2(d) of the interrogatories which states as follows: ‘The interrogatories in section 16.0, Responding Party’s contention-personal injury, should not be used until the Responding Party has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation and discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.’ Further, this Interrogatory improperly seeks expert opinion and early disclosure of expert witnesses.”

Plaintiff seeks a further response because RHP has had pre-litigation opportunities to investigate this case and Plaintiff has provided medical records to allow RHP to understand the extent of her injuries. As to Nos. 16.1-16.5, the Court agrees. RHP contends that it has not had an opportunity to conduct a reasonable investigation and discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages because Plaintiff has yet to appear for deposition or an IME, Plaintiff has objected to all subpoenas for medical records issued by RHP, and RHP has yet to depose Plaintiff’s treating doctors. However, the interrogatories plainly ask RHP to respond based on discovery proceedings thus far. RHP’s repetitious objections are not responsive.

As to No. 16.6, RHP points out that Plaintiff is not making a claim for lost earnings. Therefore, RHP should not be compelled to provide a further response. The Court agrees.

In sum, the motion as to FROG Nos. 16.1-16.5 is GRANTED. The motion is DENIED as to FROG No. 16.6.

FROG No. 16.9: “Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT (for example, insurance bureau index reports) concerning claims for personal injuries made before or after the INCIDENT by a plaintiff in this case? If so, for each plaintiff state: (a) the source of each DOCUMENT; (b) the date each claim arose; (c) the nature of each claim; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.

FROG No. 16.10: DO YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT concerning the past or present physical, mental, or emotional condition of any plaintiff in this case from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER not previously identified (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210-2034.310)? If so, for each plaintiff state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; (b) a description of each DOCUMENT; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.

Defendant responded as follows to Nos. 16.9 and 16.10: “Objection: This interrogatory seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, and the attorney work-product doctrine. The information sought in this interrogatory is equally available to Propounding Party. See, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.220(c); Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Ca1.App.2d 45. A party has an obligation to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the requested information, “except where the information is equally available to the Propounding Party.” Responding Party also objects to this interrogatory as it violates Instruction No. 2(d) of the interrogatories which states as follows: “The interrogatories in section 16.0, defendant’s contention-personal injury, should not be used until the defendant has had an reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation and discovery of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.”

Plaintiff seeks a further response to No. 16.9 and 16.10 because RHP’s objections are meritless. The Court agrees. FROG Nos. 16.9 and 16.10 do not seek privileged information. To the extent RHP asserts privilege, RHP must state the factual ground to assert the privilege and produce a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c).) Nor do the interrogatories seek information equally available to Plaintiff. Rather, the interrogatories seek information unknown to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks Defendants’ further response to Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) Nos. 1-55. Because Defendants have provided the same responses to the SROGs, the Court addresses both motions together.

In Defendants’ separate statements, filed April 18, 2023, Defendants indicate that further responses to SROG Nos. 4-12, 14-43, 45-55 will be served prior to hearing and are thus MOOT.

The remaining SROGs at issue are Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13, and 44. The Court addresses each in turn.

SROG No. 1: “IDENTIFY ALL people YOU have interviewed concerning THE INCIDENT.”

Defendants object to this interrogatory as duplicative of FROG No. 12.2. The Court agrees. FROG No. 12.2 asks “Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview.” SROG No. 1 seeks the same information. Additionally, RHP represents that they will provide further responses to FROG No. 12.2 before the hearing.

SROG No. 2: “IDENTIFY ALL people YOU know of that have personal knowledge concerning THE INCIDENT not otherwise identified in the preceding requests.”

Defendants object to this interrogatory as duplicative of FROG No. 12.1. The Court agrees. FROG No. 12.1 asks, “State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).” SROG No. 1 seeks the same information.

Defendants object to this interrogatory as duplicative of FROG No. 15.1. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the motions are DENIED as to SROG No. 3.

SROG No. 13: “DESCRIBE IN DETAIL any and all repairs done to the ceiling where the INCIDENT occurred, after the INCIDENT.”

RHP responded as follows: “Objection. Relevance. The information requested is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Pursuant to Evidence Code Section 1151, when, after the occurrence of an event, remedial or precautionary measures are taken, which, if taken previously, would have tended to make the event less likely to occur, evidence of such subsequent measures is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.”

Plaintiff seeks a further response because admissibility of evidence is not relevant to discoverability. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED as to SROG No. 13.

SROG No. 44: “Please DESCRIBE IN DETAIL how did YOUR on-duty employees became aware of the INCIDENT.”

RHP responded as follows: “Objection. This interrogatory calls for legal conclusion, calls for speculation, lacks foundation, and seeks a premature expert opinion. Further, this interrogatory improperly attempts to shift the burden of proof onto this responding party. Responding Party objects to the term “your” as defined, as it includes in its definition Responding Party’s attorneys. The inclusion of Responding Party’s attorneys in this definition causes to the Request to improperly seek disclosure of information protected by the attorney-product privilege and/or work product doctrine.”

Plaintiff seeks a further response because Defendants’ objections lack merit. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED as to SROG No. 44.

Plaintiff seeks RHP’s further response to Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”).

In RHP’s separate statement, filed April 19, 2023, RHP indicates that further responses to RPD Nos. 1-23, and 26-38 will be served prior to the hearing and are thus MOOT.

The remaining SROGs at issue are Nos. 24 and 25. The Court addresses each in turn.

RPD No. 24: “All incident reports filled in Rolling Hills Plaza in Torrance, California in the five years prior to 01/15/2019 for any PERSON that resulted injured.”

RHP objected to the request and provided the following substantive response: “Upon diligent search and reasonable inquiry to comply with this demand, Responding Party is not in possession, custody and/or control of any responsive documents. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response at a future date.”

The Court finds that this response is not code compliant. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, the statement “shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” Here, RHP does not indicate why it is unable to comply. Nor is the interrogatory overbroad in scope.

RPD No. 25: “All incident reports filled in Rolling Hills Plaza in Torrance, California in the five years after 01/15/2019 for any PERSON that resulted injured.”

In response, RHP objected on the grounds of overbreadth, seeks confidential information that is proprietary in nature and may be protected by the attorney-client, attorney work-product rule, and the request is burdensome and oppressive.

The Court finds that RHP’s objections lack merit. RHP does not set forth the grounds for invoking the attorney-client or attorney work-product privileges and did not provide a privilege log. Without any affirmative showing from RHP, the interrogatory does not seek confidential information.

Plaintiff requests sanctions of $1,260 for bringing each motion for a total amount of $5,040. In the notices of motion, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record. The Court finds that sanctions are warranted notwithstanding the Court’s ruling on FROG Nos. 3.7 and 16.6 and SROG Nos. 1-3. Pursuant to Hennings, supra, imposition of monetary sanctions against counsel is proper unless counsel shows that he or she did not counsel the discovery abuse. (Hennings, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 81.) Defense Counsel does not meet their burden. Defense counsel do not state that they did not counsel the discovery abuse and, naturally, it was counsel that interposed the meritless objections. In her declaration, Defense Counsel states that verified further responses would have been provided several months earlier if Plaintiff had simply agreed to Defense Counsel’s proposal to sign a protective order. However, sanctions are warranted for asserting frivolous objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

Accordingly, the Court imposes monetary sanctions against RHP and their counsel in the amount of $1,780, which represents 4 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $180 in filing fees. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against AMC and their counsel in the amount of $860, which represents 2 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate and $60 in filing fees.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One From Defendant Rolling Hills Park, LLC is GRANTED as to Nos. 15.1, 16.1-16.5, 16.9, and 16.10. The motion is DENIED as to Nos. 3.7 and 16.6. The motion is MOOT as to Nos. 3.1-3.6, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, 13.2 and 17.1.

Defendant Rolling Hills Park, LLC is ordered to provide verified further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 15.1, 16.1-16.5, 16.9, and 16.10.

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One From Defendants Rolling Hills Park, LLC and American Multi-Cinema, Inc. are GRANTED as to Nos. 13, and 44. The motions are DENIED as to Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The motions are MOOT as to Nos. 4-12, 14-43, and 45-55.

Defendants Rolling Hills Park, LLC and American-Multi-Cinema, Inc. ordered to provide verified further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 44.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request For Production of Documents, Set One, From Defendant Rolling Hills Park, LLC is GRANTED as to Nos. 24 and 25. The motion is moot as to Nos. 1-23 and 26-38.

Defendant Rolling Hills Park, LLC is ordered to provide verified further responses to Request for Productions Nos. 24 and 25.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request For Admissions, Set One, From Defendant Rolling Hills Park, LLC is MOOT.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request For Admissions, Set One, From Defendant American Multi-Cinema, Inc. is MOOT.

Defendant Rolling Hills Park, LLC, and their counsel are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, monetary sanctions to Plaintiff Fatemeh Azima, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel, in the amount of $1,780.

Defendant American Multi-Cinema, Inc., and their counsel are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, monetary sanctions to Plaintiff Fatemeh Azima, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel, in the amount of $860.

Sanctions are to be paid and further responses are to be provided within 20 days.

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.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court