Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV44248, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44248    Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On December 3, 2021, plaintiff City of Montebello (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Carl’s Jr Restaurants, LLC (“CJR”), Carl Karcher Enterprises, LLC (“CKE”), and Kimco Realty Corporation for injuries sustained by its employee Doreen Marquez (“Marquez”) in a March 3, 2020 slip and fall incident.  Plaintiff alleges that it paid workers’ compensation benefits to, and on behalf of, Marquez as a result of her injuries and now seeks reimbursement by way of subrogation pursuant to Labor Code Section 3852.  On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff added Akash Management, LLC as Doe 1 and The Price Reit, Inc. as Doe 2.

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel CJR’s and CKE’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  Plaintiff also requests imposition of sanctions against CJR and CKE and their counsel of record.

On March 22, 2023, counsel for CJR and CKE (hereinafter, “Defendants”) filed a declaration stating that Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request for sanctions nor Plaintiff’s request to provide complete discovery responses.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s motions are procedurally improper.  This motion seeks an order to compel responses to three distinct sets of discovery from two defendants.  Therefore, Plaintiff should have filed six separate motions.  Nonetheless, the Court will reach the merits.

II.                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., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

B.     Sanctions

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).)¿¿

III.             DISCUSSION

A.    Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests

Plaintiff served the at-issue discovery requests on Defendants, July 22, 2022.  Defendants failed to provide responses.  Plaintiff reached out to Defendants on three occasion requesting responses.  However, Defendants have yet to provide responses.  (Soll Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for production are waived.

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

B.     Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests imposition of monetary sanctions against Defendants.  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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)  Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. 

IV.             CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses is granted.

Defendants Carl’s Jr Restaurants, LLC, and Carl Karcher Enterprises, LLC are ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and 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 10 days of the date of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted.  Defendants Carl’s Jr Restaurants, LLC, and Carl Karcher Enterprises, LLC are ordered to pay Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff’s counsel of record, $800 within 30 days 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 3rd day of April 2023