Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23BBCV02097, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02097    Hearing Date: September 25, 2024    Dept: 26

Mosley v. GWH3, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

 (CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Lloyd Mosley’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Lloyd Mosley (“Plaintiff”) propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant GWH3 LLC (“Defendant”) on June 15, 2024. (Motion, Magallanes Decl., Exh. A.) Following Defendant’s failure to respond, Plaintiff sought to meet and confer. (Id. at ¶4.) Following no response from Defendant after the extended deadline, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions on August 14, 2024. Defendant filed an opposition on September 11, 2024 and Plaintiff replied on September 16, 2024.

First, the Court finds that the discovery requests served on Defendant do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 94, which prohibits interrogatories with subparts in the Limited Jurisdiction Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a)(1).) Form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council for the Limited Jurisdiction Court are set forth at Judicial Council Form DISC-004.

Second, Plaintiff improperly filed a single discovery motion to compel responses with respect to two separate sets of discovery: the first sets of Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. 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 motion reservation is made and the corresponding filing fees are paid.

Based on the foregoing, the discovery motion is denied without prejudice to give Plaintiff an opportunity to correct these defects.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Lloyd Mosley’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Court clerk to give notice.