Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV06270, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06270    Hearing Date: February 9, 2024    Dept: 27

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

CLAUDIA YESENIA CHICAS ROMAN           Plaintiff,

          vs.

 

MERCADO NUMERO UNO, INC., et al.

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 23STCV06270

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;  REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 9, 2024

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff Claudia Yesenia Chicas Roman (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant MERCADO NUMERO UNO, INC., et al. (“Defendant”).[1] for premises liability and general negligence arising from a slip and fall incident at Defendant’s store.

          On August 8, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admission.  However, Defendant received no responses from Plaintiff.

On October 12, 2023, Defendant requested verified responses from Plaintiff to each discovery request, without objection, by October 20, 2023. Plaintiff, however, failed to respond.

On November 21, 2023, Defendant filed motions to compel the interrogatories and the requests for documents and to establish admissions as to all matters specified in the requests for admissions.  Plaintiff does not oppose any of these motions; however, on February 8, 2024, one day before the hearing on this motion, Fred Hanassab, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration indicating that responses to the requests for admission had been served on Defendant on November 8, 2023, prior to the filing of the discovery motions. Because there have been no responses and no oppositions to the motions to compel, and pursuant to the applicable discovery statutes, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel.  It denies the motion to deem requests admitted. 

As to monetary sanctions, Defendant has requested $2,126.50 in monetary sanctions for each of the discovery motions filed.  In each case, that included 4 hours of time anticipated for researching on an Opposition, preparing a Reply, and appearing at the hearing. Because the motions were largely duplicative and no time needed to be spent researching and replying to an opposition, the Court awards sanctions in a total amount of $1800 for all motions. 

IV.     CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for admission served on her on August 8, 2023, without objection, within 30 days of receiving notice of this order.  Defendant’s motion to deem the requests for admissions admitted is DENIED.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, are hereby ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the total amount of $1800.00 within 30 days of receiving 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 9th Day of February, 2024

 

 

 

 

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

 



[1] Defendant’s name was erroneously sued and served. The instant motions were filed under its claimed correct name “NUMERO UNO ACQUISITIONS, LLC”