Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV38396, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38396    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Alfredo Jimenez Iniguez, et al.,

 

 

 

Plaintiffs,

 

Case

No.:

 

 

22STCV38396

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Samuel Abraham Jurado Miranda,

 

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: September 28, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(3) Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery;

Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted

Moving Party: Defendant Samuel Abraham Jurado Miranda

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Alfredo Jimenez Iniguez and Martha Margarita Diaz-Morales

 

T/R:     IF PLAINTIFFS HAVE SERVED RESPONSES, THE MOTIONS WILL BE DENIED.

 

IF PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SERVED RESPONSES OR IF PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO INFORM THE COURT THAT RESPONSES HAVE BEEN SERVED, THE MOTIONS WILL BE GRANTED AND SANCTIONS WILL BE AWARDED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,815.00

 

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 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

 

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

 

When timely responses to interrogatories are not received, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (CCP § 2030.290(b).) If a party fails to provide a timely response to a request for admission, the party waives any objection to the requests.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).)  Moreover, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction….”  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) 

 

Defendant moves to compel responses to FIs and to deem RFAs admitted against Plaintiffs Alfredo Jimenez Iniguez, and Martha Margarita Diaz-Morales. Defendant served the subject discovery on March 20, 2023. As of the filing of the motions, Defendant had not received responses.

 

The Court previously continued the hearing on these motions to allow Plaintiffs to serve responses, based on Plaintiffs’ representations in opposition to the motions that they would do so. Neither party has filed a status report stating whether responses have been served, nor has the moving party taken the motions off calendar.

 

If Plaintiffs have served responses, the motions will be DENIED. If Plaintiffs have not served responses or if Plaintiffs fail to inform the Court that responses have been served, the motions will be GRANTED and sanctions will be awarded in the total amount of $1,815.00 (3.5hrs x $450/hr + 4 x $60.00.)