Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STLC02682, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 20STLC02682    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: 25

Toby Lee Jones v. Maya Kim Kuriel, et al. 

20STLC02682

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff Toby Lee Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Maya Kim Kuriel, Yaacov Kuriel and Jee Kuriel (“Defendants”) arising out of a motor vehicle accident between Plaintiff and Defendants.

On May 16, 2023, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One).

On July 31, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and request for sanctions.

II.              Legal Standard

If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling 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).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, 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).)

Further, CCP § 2033.280(b) states that if a party to who request for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. CCP § 2033.280(c).

III.            Discussion

Form Interrogatories

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Form Interrogatories waives all objections. (C.C.P. §§2030.290.) Plaintiff did not timely serve responses to the Form Interrogatories served on May 16, 2023. (Motion, Ex. A.) Although not required, on June 26, 2023, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter requesting responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories. (Motion, Ex. B, Rickett Decl. ¶3.)

Because Plaintiff was properly served with the Form Interrogatories and failed to respond or oppose this motion, the motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the Form Interrogatories without objections is granted.

Sanctions

The Court shall issue monetary sanctions for reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with bringing the motions. (C.C.P. §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Regardless if Defendants served responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) well before the hearing date, Plaintiff is entitled to monetary sanctions. See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407; CRC 3.1348(a) (holding that the court may award sanctions despite that the requested discovery was provided after the filing of the motion).)

Defendants request a total sanctions award of $572.00 based on the attorney’s fees of $532.00 and filing fee in the amount of $40.00. Defendants’ counsel claims he spent 2 hours in preparing the motion and anticipates spending another 2 hours in travel and attendance at the hearing. Defendants’ counsel charges an hourly rate of $133.00 per hour. Counsel’s billable rate of $133.00 per hour is reasonable. The Court finds that Defendants’ counsel’s attorney fees are reasonably incurred. Accordingly, The Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the total amount of $572.00.

IV.            Conclusion & Order

Defendants Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve code-compliant responses to the Form Interrogatory without objections.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the total amount of $572.00. Plaintiff is to pay $572.00 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 20 days of notice of the Court’s order.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.