Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM06CF0671, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM06CF0671    Hearing Date: June 29, 2023    Dept: 26

Baseline Financial Services v. Abella, et al.


MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

(CCP §§ 2033.280, 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:  

Judgment Creditor Baseline Financial Services’ Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Admission is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On August 17, 1999, Judgment Creditor Baseline Financial Services (“Judgment Creditor”) filed the instant collections action against Judgment Debtor Eleanor Abella (“Judgment Debtor”). Judgment was entered in favor of Judgment Creditor and against Judgment Debtor on January 5, 2000. The judgment was renewed on March 20, 2006 and December 18, 2015.

Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Response to Interrogatories and Requests for Admission on May 25, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

First, the instant Motion is not accompanied by a proof of service demonstrating that the motion papers and notice of hearing were served on Judgment Debtor. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)

Second, Judgment Creditor improperly filed combined discovery motions to compel responses and deem requests for admission admitted with respect to separate sets of discovery served on Judgment Debtor. Filing combined discovery motions 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.)

Third, the Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2033.280, which are inapplicable to post-judgment discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a) [“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”].)

Fourth, even if Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 could apply to post-judgment requests for admission, it does not provide for an order compelling responses to requests for admission, as sought by Judgment Creditor. (See Notice of Motion, pp. 1:21-2:4.)

Finally, the Motion is not supported by a declaration made in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 that demonstrates the admissibility of the attached exhibits. (See Motion, p. 2:13-24.)

Conclusion

Therefore, Judgment Creditor Baseline Financial Services’ Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Admission is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.