Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 23STLC04740, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC04740, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04740 Hearing Date: January 25, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Thursday, January 25, 2024

Case Name: JOAQUIN HERNANDEZ v. DOLLY INVESTMENTS INC., OPAL ROKNIPOUR AKA OPAL B. ROKNIPOUR, and DOES 1-10

Case No.: 23STLC04740

Motion: Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Joaquin Hernandez

Responding Party: None

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Joaquin Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

The Court Orders Defendant Roknipour to respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories,

Set One, with Objection-Free Verified Responses within twenty (20) days from notice of

this Order. Defendant Roknipour is ordered to pay $500.00 to Plaintiff’s Counsel Within

Thirty (30) Days of Service of this Order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed on January 12, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed on January 18, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff Joaquin Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed a cause of action against Defendants Dolly Investments Inc., and Opal Roknipour aka Opal B. Roknipour (“Roknipour, (collectively “Defendants”) for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51 seeking damages in the amount of $4,000.00.

Defendants filed answers on September 18, 2023.

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Roknipour’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (Set One). No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff prays for the Court to issue an order compelling Defendant Roknipour’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff asserts that since Plaintiff propounded its Special Interrogatories to Defendant Roknipour and Defendant Roknipour did not provide verified responses, the Court’s order compelling responses is therefore necessary. Plaintiff additionally requests sanctions in the amount of $500.00 for one (1) hour of attorney time billed at an hourly rate of $500.00.

OPPOSITION

No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I. Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff provides the court with the Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, in which counsel avers that on September 18, 2023, his office served Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, upon Defendant Roknipour. (Morse Mehrban Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defendant Roknipour needed to have filed its responses by or before October 18, 2023, to be considered timely. Upon not receiving a response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Plaintiff’s counsel issued a letter to Defendant Roknipour requesting responses be made by November 16, 2023, to avoid filing the instant motion. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that since issuing the letter to Defendant Roknipour, his office received no verified answers to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 4.) Here, the court finds that more than thirty (30) days have lapsed since the service of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories. Thus, since more than thirty (30) days has lapsed since service of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, then Plaintiff is entitled to pursue the instant motion. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an issuance of an order to compel responses to its Special Interrogatories.

B. Motion for Sanctions.

The Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(c) provides in relevant part that the Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney, “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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(c).)

As discussed above, the Court finds Plaintiff to have successfully made the motion and Defendant Roknipour to have unsuccessfully opposed the motion. Without evidence to the contrary, the Court cannot find that Defendant Roknipour acted with substantial justification in failing to respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Therefore, the Court must impose a monetary sanction against Defendant Roknipour as specified under CCP § 2030.290(c).

Here, Plaintiff seeks $500.00 in attorney’s fees incurred for one (1) hour spent pursuing the motion. (Mehrban Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court finds the amount reasonable given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $500.00 against Defendant Roknipour.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Joaquin Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. DEFENDANT ROKNIPOUR IS ORDERED TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, WITH CODE COMPLIANT, OBJECTION-FREE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

DEFENDANT ROKNIPOUR IS ORDERED TO PAY $500.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.