Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00845 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00845, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00845 Hearing Date: May 23, 2023 Dept: C

HERNANDEZ v. MACIAS, et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00845

HEARING: 5/23/23 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

I. Plaintiff Hernandez’s motion to compel further responses and strike all objections from form interrogatories, set one is MOOT.

II. Plaintiff Hernandez’s motion to compel further responses and strike all objections from form interrogatories (employment), set one is MOOT.

III. Plaintiff Hernandez’s motion to have request for admissions, set one, deemed admitted against Defendant OPC Trucking, or in the alternative, to compel Defendant OPC Trucking to provide responses is MOOT.

Reduced sanctions are imposed against Defendant OPC and counsel, jointly and severally, in the reasonable sum of $3,500.00, payable within 30 days.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Hernandez moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories and request for admissions pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.300, 2031 and 2033.290.

The Complaint alleges that in February of 2014, Plaintiff Maria del Socorro entered into a relationship with Defendant Orlando Martin Cernas Macias (“Cernas”). (Complaint, ¶ 18.) “In 2015, Mr. Cernas told Plaintiff that he was married and she ended their relationship. Upon learning that Plaintiff was in a new relationship in 2016, Mr. Cernas began to violently stalk Plaintiff, including but not limited to showing up at her house unannounced and uninvited and harass her. (Id., ¶ 20.) “When Plaintiff’s relationship ended in the summer of 2017, Mr. Cernas rehired Plaintiff to stock his warehouse. Due to financial pressures, Plaintiff was forced to accept the work.” (Id., ¶ 21.) “In or around October of 2017, Mr. Cernas started a new company called Latinos Food Truck. He hired Plaintiff to work as the office manager for the company. Plaintiff took on various roles working for Mr. Cernas’ businesses.” (Id., ¶ 22.) “When Plaintiff began working for Latinos Food Truck, Mr. Cernas forced her to have sexual intercourse with him, despite her protests. The sexual harassment only got worse. By 2018 and through the remainder of her, Mr. Cernas harassed Plaintiff on a daily basis. Mr. Cernas would force Plaintiff to stay after hours, turned off the cameras and locked the doors before forcing Plaintiff to have sex with him. Whenever she declined, Mr. Cernas would become irrate and threaten to fire her.” (Id., ¶ 23.) Plaintiff was terminated, but the harassment continued with Cernas installing cameras in her house. (Id., ¶ 28.) Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1. Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. (Sexual Harassment)

2. Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California
Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. (Gender Discrimination)

3. Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California
Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. (Retaliation)

4. Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California
Government Code §§ 12940, et seq. (Failure to Prevent Workplace
Harassment)

5. Negligent Supervision and Retention

6. Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 1194, and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime Wages

7. Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums)

8. Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums)

9. Violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

10. Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226, 432, and 1198.5

11. Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 203

12. Battery

13. Assault

14. Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion into Private Matters)

15. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

CCP §§ 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2030.300(b).) CCP § 2033.280(b) and (c) allow the propounding party to file a motion requesting that the truth of any matters specified in the request for admissions be deemed admitted unless the party to whom the requests have been directed has served before the hearing a proposed response that is in substantial compliance.

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff propounded discovery. (Blackman Decl., ¶ 4.) On December 1, 2022, Defendant OPC served responses. (Blackman Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.) However, the responses were authored and provided by Defendant Cernas “In Pro Se” on behalf of Defendant OPC. (Blackman Decl., ¶ 4.)

According to Plaintiff, Defendant Cernas, who is not an attorney, was not permitted to respond to discovery and assert objections on behalf of OPC. Plaintiff seeks an order waiving Defendant’s objections.

However, Plaintiff’s authorities do not support this proposition. Both Paradise v. Nowlin and CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon hold that a corporation cannot represent itself “in court” or “before courts of record.” (Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 - “in matters in court it can act only through licensed attorneys”; CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146 – a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona.)

Both cases recognize that a corporation can act through its agents and representatives out of court and that it has capacity to be a party. (Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 - “out of court it must act in its affairs through its agents and representatives”; CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1150 – “the rule requiring representation by an attorney does not deprive a corporation of the capacity to be a party to a lawsuit.”)

Here, the discovery was served to Defendant “out of court.” Cernes responded on behalf of OPC to the discovery, asserted objections, and verified the responses. The responses were not untimely and as a party, OPC retains its right to assert objections. Accordingly, the court declines to order any waiver of objections.

After serving the initial responses, OPC retained an attorney and submitted supplemental responses on May 2, 2023. Accordingly, the motions are MOOT as further responses have been served.

Although Plaintiff contends that the responses are insufficient, those responses are not the subject of this motion or the separate statement. The parties are to meet and confer about any deficiency in the supplemental responses.

Sanctions: CCP §§ 2023.010(d), 2030.300(d) and 2033.290(d) authorize the court to impose sanctions against the unsuccessful party unless the court finds the party acted with substantial justification.

Here, sanctions are warranted because Defendant’s deficient initial responses necessitated the filing of the motions. The court finds Plaintiff’s request of $18,320.00 is excessive. Instead, reduced sanctions are imposed against Defendant OPC and counsel, jointly and severally, in the reasonable sum of $3,500.00, payable within 30 days.