Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV46032, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV46032 Hearing Date: December 3, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 20STCV46032
On December 2, 2020, Plaintiffs Jazmin Torres Novoa and Ashley Gregorio (“Gregorio”), by her guardian ad litem Jazmin Torres Novoa, filed an action against Defendants Franklin Winbom and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and exemplary damages. (Case number 20STCV46032.)
On August 19, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to correct Defendant’s name, which is Franklin Windom (“Windom”).
On November 15, 2022, the Court appointed Jazmine Torres Novoa to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Ashley Gregorio.
On January 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On April 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal.
On November 9, 2023, Windom filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Jasmine Novoa Torres and Roes 11-20 for indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief. On January 25, 2024, Cross-Defendant Jasmine Novoa Torres filed an answer to Windom’s cross-complaint.
On July 9, 2024, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant D&W Trucking, Inc. as Doe 3.
B. Case number 22STCV22649
On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff Delila Rangel, by and through her guardian ad litem George Rangel (“Rangel”), filed an action against Defendants Windom, D & W Trucking, Inc. (“D&W”), Jasmine Novoa Torres, and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring/retention/training/supervision. (Case number 22STCV22649.)
On September 21, 2022, Defendant Jasmine Novoa Torres filed an answer.
On October 7, 2022, D&W filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Jasmine Novoa Torres and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On December 22, 2022, Defendant Jasmine Novoa Torres filed an answer to D&W’s cross-complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants D&W, Windom, and Roes 1-10 for comparative indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On November 9, 2023, Windom filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants D&W, Jasmine Novoa Torres, and Roes 11-20 for indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief. On August 5, 2024, the Court dismissed Windom’s cross-complaint without prejudice.
On February 5, 2024, Windom filed an answer to Rangel’s complaint.
C. The Court relates and consolidates the cases
On May 30, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 20STCV46032 and 22STCV22649 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 20STCV46032 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On October 10, 2023, the Court consolidated the cases for all purposes based on the parties’ stipulation. Case number 20STCV46032 remained the lead case.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 23, 2025.
D. These motions
On September 30, 2024, Windom filed (1) a motion to compel Gregorio’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set two (Windom should have filed separate motions to compel, one for each type of interrogatory), (2) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Jazmine Torres Novoa (“Novoa”), and (3) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Gregorio. The motions were set for hearing on December 3, 2024. On September 30 and November 12, 2024, Novoa and Gregorio (“Plaintiffs”) filed oppositions. On November 25 and November 26, 2024, Windom filed replies.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Windom asks the Court (1) to compel Gregorio’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set two, (2) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Novoa, and (3) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on served on Gregorio. Windom also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiffs and their counsel.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny the motions and impose sanctions on Windom and his counsel.
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
A. Windom’s motion to compel interrogatory responses
On August 12, 2024, Windom served form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set one, on Gregorio. Windom argues that Gregorio did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Defendant filed these motions.
However, on September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Windom’s counsel an email which listed Plaintiffs’ objections to the interrogatories. (Exh. I.) No verification is required for objection-only interrogatory responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).)
If Windom believed Plaintiffs’ objections were without merit or too general, Windom could have filed a motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).) Windom, however, filed a motion to compel responses, which is not authorized when the party to whom the interrogatories are directed has served a timely response. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)
The Court denies Windom’s motion.
Plaintiffs request $1,100.00 in monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), based on four hours of attorney time at a rate of $275.00 per hour “to prepare opposition, reply and attend the hearings in these matters . . . .” The Court awards Plaintiffs $500.00 in sanctions based on two hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour.
B. Windom’s motions to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission
On August 12, 2024, Windom served requests for admission, set one, on Gregorio and Novoa. Windom argues that Gregorio and Novoa did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Defendant filed these motions.
However, on September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Windom’s counsel an email which listed Plaintiffs’ objections to the requests for admission. (Exh. I.) No verification is required for objection-only responses to requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a).)
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs do not rely on their objections served on September 10, 2024. Instead, Plaintiffs assert that they served verified responses to the requests for admission on November 4, 2024, preventing the Court from deeming admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to refrain from imposing sanctions because, they assert, the requests for admission were not propounded in separate documents. In his replies, however, Windom has submitted an email which shows that his counsel separately served the requests for admission electronically. (Exh. J.)
Windom admits that Plaintiffs served verified responses to the requests for admission prior to the hearing on the motions but argues the responses are deficient. If Windom complies with the statutory requirements and the Court's Eighth Amended Standing Order, Windom may file a motion to compel further responses to the requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290.)
Sanctions are mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c). Windom requests monetary sanctions based on 5 hours of attorney time at a rate of $300.00 per hour and two $60.00 filing fees. Counsel spent 1.5 hours of attorney time to prepare each motion and anticipated spending two hours to attend the hearing. The Court awards Windom $620.00 based on two hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and two filing fees.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Franklin Windom’s motion to compel Plaintiffs Jazmin Torres Novoa and Ashley Gregorio, by her guardian ad litem Jazmin Torres Novoa, to serve responses to form interrogatories, set two, and special interrogatories, set one. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions and orders Defendant Franklin Windom and his counsel to pay Plaintiffs Jazmin Torres Novoa and Ashley Gregorio, by her guardian ad litem Jazmin Torres Novoa, $500.00 by January 2, 2025.
The Court DENIES Defendant Franklin Windom’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Plaintiff Ashley Gregorio, by her guardian ad litem Jazmin Torres Novoa.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Franklin Windom's request for sanctions on his motions to deem matters admitted and orders Plaintiffs Jazmin Torres Novoa and Ashley Gregorio, by her guardian ad litem Jazmin Torres Novoa, and their counsel to pay Defendant Frank Windom $620.00 by January 2, 2025.
The Court ORDERS Defendant Frank Windom to pay the Court an additional $60.00 filing fee by January 2, 2025 based on his failure to file separate motions to compel responses to form and special interrogatories.
Moving party is to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.