Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 23PSCV03884, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03884, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

1. Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant Morris Chestnut’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One;

2. Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant Morris Chestnut’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One;

3. Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant Morris Chestnut’s Responses to Requests for Production, Set One; and

4. Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant Morris Chestnut’s Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s discovery motions. Defendant Morris Chestnut must serve verified responses, including responsive documents where applicable, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, within 30 days of the Court’s order. The truth of the matters specified in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted and conclusively established as to Defendant Morris Chestnut.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $860.00 per motion, for a grand total of $3,440.00. Defendant Morris Chestnut must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiffs within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

This is a breach of contract action. On December 14, 2023, plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc. (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Morris Chestnut (Chestnut), MC Auto Group. Inc. (MC Auto), Chestnut Automotive of Glendora, LLC[1] (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 through 100, alleging one cause of action for breach of contract.

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiffs moved to compel responses from Defendant Chestnut to written discovery requests and to deem requests for admissions admitted. On November 21, 2024, Defendant Chestnut opposed the motions. On November 22, 2024, Plaintiffs replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… 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.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for admission, the party propounding the request for admission may move for an order to deem the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “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… on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant Chestnut’s opposition was filed on November 21, 2024, the day before the reply deadline, and is therefore very late. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) The Court will still consider the opposition, but admonishes Chestnut to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.)

Although meeting and conferring is not required before bringing motions to compel, the Court appreciates Plaintiffs’ efforts to meet and confer before bringing these motions. (Zorayan Decls., ¶¶ 5-6; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) However, the Court does request that parties meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference before bringing a motion. (Dept. 6 Courtroom Information [“Parties are required to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference before filing any motion”].)

Plaintiffs seek to compel responses from Defendant Chestnut to their written discovery requests and to deem admitted requests for admission served on April 29, 2024. (Zorayan Decls., ¶ 2.) Despite having granted a couple extensions, Defendant Chestnut failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Zorayan Decls., ¶¶ 3-6.) Although Defendant Chestnut argues that the parties were engaged in settlement discussions and he may have been out of the country, there is no evidence of any agreement to stay discovery or grant further extensions. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ motions well taken and GRANTS them. Defendant Chestnut must serve verified responses, including responsive documents where applicable, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, within 30 days of the Court’s order. The truth of the matters specified in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted and conclusively established as to Defendant Morris Chestnut.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $860.00 per motion, comprised of 2.0 hours preparing each motion and attending the corresponding hearing, multiplied by the hourly rate of $400.00, plus $60.00 for the filing fee, for a grand total of $3,440.00. Defendant Chestnut must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiffs within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

1. Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant MC Auto Group, Inc.’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One;

2. Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant MC Auto Group, Inc.’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One;

3. Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant MC Auto Group, Inc.’s Responses to Requests for Production, Set One; and

4. Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Defendant MC Auto Group, Inc.’s Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Michael Martin and Martin Automotive Group, Inc.’s discovery motions. Defendant MC Auto Group, Inc. must serve verified responses, including responsive documents where applicable, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, within 30 days of the Court’s order. The truth of the matters specified in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted and conclusively established as to Defendant MC Auto Group, Inc.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $860.00 per motion, for a grand total of $3,440.00. Defendant MC Auto Group, Inc. must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiffs within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiffs moved to compel responses from Defendant MC Auto to written discovery requests and to deem requests for admissions admitted.[2] On November 21, 2024, Defendant MC Auto opposed the motions. On November 22, 2024, Plaintiffs replied.

Defendant MC Auto’s opposition was filed on November 21, 2024, the day before the reply deadline, and is therefore very late. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) The Court will still consider the opposition, but admonishes MC Auto to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.)

Plaintiffs seek to compel responses from Defendant MC Auto to their written discovery requests and to deem admitted requests for admission served on April 29, 2024. (Zorayan Decls., ¶ 2.) Despite having granted a couple extensions, Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Zorayan Decls., ¶¶ 3-6.) Although Defendant MC Auto argues that the parties were engaged in settlement discussions and Defendant’s principal may have been out of the country, there is no evidence of any agreement to stay discovery or grant further extensions. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ motions well taken and GRANTS them. Defendant must serve verified responses, including responsive documents where applicable, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, within 30 days of the Court’s order. The truth of the matters specified in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted and conclusively established as to Defendant MC Auto Group, Inc.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $860.00 per motion, comprised of 2.0 hours preparing each motion and attending the corresponding hearing, multiplied by the hourly rate of $400.00, plus $60.00 for the filing fee, for a grand total of $3,440.00. Defendant must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiffs within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

[1] Chestnut Automotive of Glendora, LLC was originally sued as Martin Automotive of Glendora, LLC, but Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the complaint on January 11, 2024, correcting the mistake. (Amendment to Complaint (1/11/24).)

[2] Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, on October 24, 2024.