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.)