Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV30422, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV30422 Hearing Date: October 1, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff Myung Shin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Elizabeth Yang, individually and as Trustee of the Elizabeth Yang Trust (“Yang”), L&M California, Inc. (“L&M”), and Does 1-50 for general negligence, premises liability, violations of Health & Safety Code § 19995, Civil Code §§ 51, 51.5, 52(a), 54, 54 .1, and 54.3, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
On February 21, 2024, the clerk entered L&M’s default. On May 13, 2024, the Court vacated the default based on the parties’ stipulation. On May 14, 2024, L&M filed an answer.
On April 2, 2024, Yang filed an answer.
On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to compel the responses of Elizabeth Yang as Trustee of the Elizabeth Yang Trust (“Trustee”) to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions and (2) a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Trustee. The motions were set for hearing on September 30, 2024. On September 17, 2024, Trustee filed oppositions. On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed replies. On September 30, 2024, Trustee’s counsel’s filed a declaration re: service of verified responses to requests for admission.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 11, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Trustee’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Trustee. Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Trustee.
Trustee asks the Court to deny the motions.
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. Motion to compel responses to special interrogatories
In opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Trustee asserts that she did not timely serve responses to the special interrogatories due to an inadvertent clerical mistake by the office of Trustee’s prior counsel. Trustee’s current counsel substituted into the case on September 16, 2024 and intends to serve Trustee’s responses before October 1, 2024. Trustee asks that the Court impose sanctions, if any, on Trustee’s prior counsel, the Law Offices of Scott C. Stratman.
Trustee has not shown that she has served responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories. The Court grants the motion and orders Trustee to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories, set one, without objections by October 31, 2024.
Plaintiff requests $2,810.00 in sanctions based on 10 hours of attorney time at $250.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. Counsel spent four hours to prepare the motion and 1.5 hours on meet and confer efforts. Counsel anticipated spending one hour to review the opposition, 1.5 hours to prepare a reply, and two hours to attend the hearing.
The Court grants $810.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time and one filing fee.
B. Motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission
On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff served requests for admission, set one, on Trustee. Trustee did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time Plaintiff filed the motion to deem matters admitted.
On September 30, 2024, Trustee’s counsel filed a declaration stating that, on September 27, 2024, counsel’s office served Trustee’s verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission on all parties. The responses and verification are attached to the declaration.
The Court denies the motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).
Plaintiff requests $2,810.00 in sanctions based on 10 hours of attorney time at $250.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. Counsel spent four hours to prepare the motion and 1.5 hours on meet and confer efforts. Counsel anticipated spending one hour to review the opposition, 1.5 hours to prepare a reply, and two hours to attend the hearing.
The Court grants $810.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time and one filing fee. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Myung Shin’s motion to compel Defendant Elizabeth Yang, as Trustee of the Elizabeth Yang Trust, to serve responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Defendant Elizabeth Yang, as Trustee of the Elizabeth Yang Trust, to serve verified code compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by October 31, 2024.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff Myung Shin’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Defendant Elizabeth Yang as Trustee of the Elizabeth Yang Trust.
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff Myung Shin’s requests for sanctions and orders Defendant Elizabeth Yang, as Trustee of the Elizabeth Yang Trust, and her former counsel Law Offices of Scott C. Stratman, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff Myung Shin $1,620.00 ($810.00 for each motion) by October 31, 2024. In all other respects, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's sanctions requests.
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.