Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00744, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00744    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 26

Proud Auto Services, Inc. v. Alvarado, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:  

Plaintiff Proud Auto Services, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff Proud Auto Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendants Jesus Armando Alvarado and Rosario Trinh (“Defendants”). (Motion, Miller Decl., Exh. 1.) Despite a meet and confer effort extending the deadline to respond to the requests, Defendants have not served responses. (Id. at ¶¶3-4 and Exh. 2.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Sanctions, on October 17, 2022. No opposition to the Motion has been filed to date.

Discussion

Initially, the Court addresses the fact that Plaintiff filed a single discovery motion with respect to two separate sets of discovery. (Motion, Miller Decl., Exh. 1.) Filing the requests as a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. Furthermore, it allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Plaintiff’s motion, therefore, cannot be heard in full until an additional filing fee is paid.

Also, the Court finds that the discovery requests served on Defendants do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 94, which allows only 35 written discovery requests in the limited jurisdiction court unless otherwise authorized by the Court or stipulation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a); § 95.) Plaintiff has served more than 35 written discovery requests on each Defendant. (Motion, Miller Decl., Exh. 1.) Finally, the Court notes that the form interrogatories include subparts, which also violates Code of Civil Procedure section 94, subdivision (a)(1). (Ibid.) Form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council for the Limited Jurisdiction Court are set forth at Judicial Council Form DISC-004.

Based on the foregoing, the discovery motion is denied. The Court will not grant motions to compel discovery propounded in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Proud Auto Services, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Court clerk to give notice.