Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV18231, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV18231 Hearing Date: June 13, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Hrach Agazaryan (“Agazaryan”) filed this action against Defendants Amado De Borja, Betty De Borja, Lotus Restaurant, Axtamar Restaurant (“Axtamar”), and Does 1-100 for negligence and assault/battery.
On July 13, 2021, Agazaryan filed a first amended complaint.
On October 15, 2021, the Court sustained Axtamar’s demurrer to Agazaryan’s first amended complaint with leave to amend.
On October 28, 2021, the Court sustained the demurrer of Defendants Amado De Borja and Betty De Borja to the first amended complaint. The Court also dismissed Defendants Amado De Borja and Betty De Borja without prejudice at Agazaryan’s request.
On October 29, 2021, Agazaryan filed a second amended complaint against Defendants Amado De Borja, Betty De Borja, Axtamar, and Does 1-100 for negligence and assault/battery.
On January 27, 2022, the Court sustained Axtamar Restaurant’s demurrer to Agazaryan’s second amended complaint with leave to amend.
On February 16, 2022, Agazaryan filed a third amended complaint against Defendants Amado De Borja, Betty De Borja, Axtamar, and Does 1-100 for negligence and assault/battery.
On April 19, 2022, the Court (1) overruled Axtamar’s demurrer to Agazaryan’s third amended complaint and (2) granted in part Axtamar’s motion to strike and struck all references to Axtamar in the second cause of action. The Court denied Axtamar’s request to strike the punitive damage claim in the second cause of action.
On August 18, 2022, the Court granted State Farm General Insurance Company’s ex parte application to intervene.
On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff-in-Intervention State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) filed a complaint-in-intervention against Defendants-in-Intervention Agazaryan and Roes 1-20 “solely in [State Farm’s] capacity as liability insurer of Defendant MAMKA, INC. dba LOTUS RESTAURANT (named herein as Defendant MAMKA, INC. dba AXTAMAR RESTAURANT (formerly dba LOTUS RESTAURANT) . . . .”
On April 25, 2024, State Farm filed (1) a motion to compel Agazaryan’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions, and (2) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. The motions were set to be heard on May 16, 2024. Agazaryan did not file oppositions. The Court continued the hearing to June 13, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for October 1, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
State Farm asks the Court (1) to compel Agazaryan’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, (2) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and (3) to impose sanctions on Agazaryan.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides:
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
B. Requests for admission
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides:
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The 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).
“(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
DISCUSSION
On October 31, 2023, State Farm served special interrogatories, set one, and requests for admission, set one, on Agazaryan.
Agazaryan did not provide timely responses and had not provided responses by the time State Farm filed these motions.
The Court grants State Farm's motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, and deems admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission served on Agazaryan on October 31, 2023.
State Farm requests $900.00 in sanctions on its motion to compel responses to the special interrogatories. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, sanctions are available against parties, persons, and attorneys who unsuccessfully make or oppose a motion to compel a response to interrogatories. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories].) Agazaryan has not made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories. Therefore, sanctions are not available under this statute.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for this motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 is “ ‘definitional’ and monetary sanctions may not be imposed based solely on [the statute]. Monetary sanctions may be imposed only if authorized by some other provision of the Discovery Act.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:1900, p. 8M-2; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 [court may impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or other provision of this title”]; City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 498-504, review granted Jan. 23, 2023 with order permitting citation of opinion for its persuasive value and to establish the existence of a conflict in authority that would “allow trial courts to exercise discretion . . . to choose between sides of any such conflict.”)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), provides: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1348(a).) Because rule 3.1348(a) authorizes sanctions “under the Discovery Act,” the Court may not award sanctions under rule 3.1348(a) except as the Discovery Act authorizes. As explained above, the Discovery Act does not authorize sanctions for State Farm’s unopposed motion to compel responses to special interrogatories. Therefore, the Court denies State Farm’s request for sanctions on the motion to compel.
Sanctions are mandatory for State Farm’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) State Farm requests $900.00 in sanctions based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $210.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. Counsel spent two hours preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending one hour to review any opposition and prepare a reply and one hour to attend the hearing. The Court grants $690.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time and one filing fee.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff-in-Intervention State Farm General Insurance Company’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and orders Plaintiff Hrach Agazaryan to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by July 12, 2024.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff-in-Intervention State Farm General Insurance Company’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. The Court deems admitted the matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff Hrach on October 31, 2023.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff-in-Intervention State Farm General Insurance Company’s request for sanctions on its motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission. The Court orders Plaintiff Hrach Agazaryan and his counsel to pay Plaintiff-in-Intervention State Farm General Insurance Company $690.00 by July 12, 2024.
Moving party is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
Moving party is to file proof of service of the Court’s ruling within five days.