Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV40223, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40223    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 6, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and For Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,560.00

Moving Party: Defendant, Hyundai Motor America

Responding Party: Plaintiffs, Marcelo Olivas and Rosalinda Olivas

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL IS DENIED AS MOOT.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Marcelo Olivas and Rosalinda Olivas commenced this Lemon Law action against Defendant Hyundai Motor America on October 20, 2020.

On October 25, 2022, Defendant filed this Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and For Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,560.

ANALYSIS

            Where a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the requesting party may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  A party that fails to respond to interrogatories “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).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260, a responding party must serve responses to a propounding party’s interrogatories within thirty (30) days of service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) 

            Defendant contends Plaintiffs were served with Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) on June 28, 2022, Plaintiffs were required to serve a response no later than August 2, 2022, and Plaintiffs have failed to serve a timely response.  (Cowden Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.)  In Opposition, Plaintiffs declare they each served a verified response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) on October 24, 2022.  (Sanai Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 1.)  The present Motion is DENIED as MOOT.

            The Court declines to award sanctions. The motion need not have been filed and should have been withdrawn when responses were served.