Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV23986, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV23986    Hearing Date: March 3, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 3, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Drew Davis

Responding Party: Defendant Shatana Bacon

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ARE DENIED.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

PLAINTIFF 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 to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. . .  [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . .  The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”  (CCP § 2031.300(a)–(b).)

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to FIs and RPDs, set one, from Defendant. Defendant served the subject discovery on October 12, 2024. Responses were due on November 13, 2024. In opposition, Defendant represents that responses were served on February 18, 2025. In reply, Plaintiff argues that the responses are deficient.

As responses have been served, the motions are DENIED as moot. If Plaintiff takes issue with the content of the responses, Plaintiff must meet and confer with Defendant and then file a motion to compel further responses. The Court declines award sanctions as the motion should have been taken off calendar after responses were served.

Hearing Date: March 3, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

Responding Party: None

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED.

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. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff Cherika Trammell filed a complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that she was “discriminated, harassed, injured while being employed by the Department of Health Services with Los Angeles County.”

ANALYSIS

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is an appropriate means of obtaining an adjudication of the rights of the parties in a declaratory relief action if those rights can be determined as a matter of law from the face of the pleading attacked, together with those matters of which the court may properly take judicial notice. (Silver v. Beverly Hills Nat. Bank (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 1000, 1005 [61 Cal.Rptr. 751].) A plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is analogous to a plaintiff's demurrer to an answer and is evaluated by the same standards. (See Hardy v. Admiral Oil Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 836, 840-842 [16 Cal.Rptr. 894, 366 P.2d 310]; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Proceedings Without Trial, § 165, pp. 2819-2820.) The motion should be denied if the defendant's pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense; for purposes of ruling on the motion, the trial court must treat all of the defendant's allegations as being true. (MacIsaac v. Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 813 [161 P.2d 449].)

(Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kim W. (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 326, 330–331.)

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. The Court agrees. As stated, Plaintiff alleges she was “discriminated, harassed, injured while being employed by the Department of Health Services with Los Angeles County.” Plaintiff alleges no other facts.

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.