Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV41997, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV41997 Hearing Date: March 18, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: March 18, 2024
Moving Party: Plaintiff Francisco Javier Cervantes Manriquez
Responding Party: None.
Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Request for Admissions (Set Two)
The Court considered the moving papers.
The motion is DENIED, 2024 for Plaintiff’s Counsel to cure the below-identified deficiencies.
Background
On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff Francisco Javier Cervantes Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Great Western Remodeling, Inc., Kristina Rozina Bonhomme (“Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive for: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime; (2) Inaccurate Wage Statement; (3) Failure to Pay for Rest Periods not Provided; (4) Failure to Pay for Meal Periods not Provided; (5) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (6) Waiting Time Penalties; (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (8) Disability Discrimination; (9) Race and National Origin Discrimination; (10) Failure to Prevent Discrimination; (11) Harassment Due to Race; (12) Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq; (13) Failure to Accommodate Physical Disability in Violation of Government Code § 12940(m); (14) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Government Code § 12940(n); and (15) Unfair Competition.
On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed this instant Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Request for Admissions (Set Two). No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
A party that has not received timely responses to requests for admission may move for an order deeming the matters specified in the requests as admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Discussion
Plaintiff Francisco Javier Cervantes Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Kristina Rozina Bonhomme (“Defendant Bonhomme”) to provide responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set Two).
However, the Court notes that this motion is brought under the wrong Code of Civil Procedure Section. The Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities cites to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290 and 2030.300, which pertain to compelling responses to interrogatories not request for admissions. The Memorandum of Points and Authorities also appears to argue for an order compelling responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery propounded upon Defendant Bonhomme. (Mem. of P&A at p. 2:13-22.) Additionally, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities argues Defendant Bonhomme misused the discovery process by not providing responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery in support of Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. (Mem. of P&A at p. 3:13-14.) The Court previously ruled on Plaintiff’s motions to compel the first set of discovery. As such, the motion as currently written does not support the request for an order to compelling responses to Request for Admissions (Set Two) made by Plaintiff in the Notice of Motion.
Therefore, the motion to compel initial responses to request for admissions (set two) is Denied in view of the above-identified deficiencies.
It is so ordered.
Dated: March 18, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M. TREU
Judge of the Superior Court
Hearing date: March
18, 2024
Moving
Party: Plaintiff Francisco Javier
Cervantes Manriquez
Responding
Party: None.
Motion
to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set Two)
The Court
considered the moving papers.
The
motion is GRANTED.
The
request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $500.00.
Background
On
November 15, 2021, Plaintiff Francisco Javier Cervantes Manriquez (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Complaint against Defendants Great Western Remodeling, Inc., Kristina
Rozina Bonhomme (“Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive for: (1)
Failure to Pay Overtime; (2) Inaccurate Wage Statement; (3) Failure to Pay for
Rest Periods not Provided; (4) Failure to Pay for Meal Periods not Provided;
(5) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (6) Waiting Time Penalties; (7) Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (8) Disability Discrimination; (9)
Race and National Origin Discrimination; (10) Failure to Prevent
Discrimination; (11) Harassment Due to Race; (12) Hostile Work Environment in
Violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq; (13) Failure to Accommodate
Physical Disability in Violation of Government Code § 12940(m); (14) Failure to
Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Government Code §
12940(n); and (15) Unfair Competition.
On
September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed this instant Motion to Compel Initial
Responses to Form Interrogatories – General (Set Two). No opposition has been
filed.
Legal
Standard
A responding
party has 30 days after service of interrogatories to serve their responses on
the propounding party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).) However, if
interrogatories are served by electronic service, a responding party has an
additional 2 court days to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1010.6(a)(3)(B).)
If the
responding party fails to timely respond to the interrogatories, “The party to
whom the interrogatories are directed 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(a).)
Furthermore, the
party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response
to the interrogatories. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) And
“Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not
subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to
demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’
requirement.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)
Discussion
Plaintiff Francisco Javier Cervantes
Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Kristina Rozina
Bonhomme (“Defendant Bonhomme”) to provide responses, without objection, to
Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set Two).
On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff
propounded his second set of Form Interrogatories – General on Defendant
Bonhomme. (FROGs – General Schelly Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) As such, Plaintiff
contends Defendant Bonhomme’s deadline to respond was June 22, 2023. (Id.
at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff further contends Defendant Bonhomme failed to serve
responses on June 22, 2023. (Id.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s
counsel avers he sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant Bonhomme to discuss
her failure to provide responses on July 5, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 6, Ex. B.)
Plaintiff’s counsel also declares Defendant Bonhomme did not respond to
Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel declares he
sent follow up emails to Defendant Bonhomme and to the date of filing of this
present motion, Defendant Bonhomme has not responded to Plaintiff’s meet and
confer letter nor served responses. (Id. at ¶ 7, Ex. C.)
The Court finds that Plaintiff
properly served his Form Interrogatories – General (Set Two) on Defendant
Bonhomme. Furthermore, Defendant Bonhomme’s responses were due by June 22, 2023
because it would 30 court days from the date of the Form Interrogatories –
General (Set Two) were propounded on Defendant Bonhomme. As of March 13, 2024,
there is no indication by Plaintiff or Defendant Bonhomme that these responses
have been provided. As such, Defendant Bonhomme has failed to serve any
responses.
Therefore, the motion to compel
initial responses to form interrogatories – general (set two) is GRANTED. Defendant Kristina Rozina Bonhomme must serve
responses to form interrogatories – general (set two) within 20 days of this
order.
Request for
Monetary Sanctions
When a request
for monetary sanctions is concurrently filed with a motion to compel responses,
“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the
misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both
pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a
result of that conduct.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).) Additionally, “If
a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court
shall impose that sanction unless it finds that one subject to the sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of sanction unjust.” (Ibid.)
As the motion to
compel is granted, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is also granted.
Plaintiff
requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,085.00 for spending (1) 2.0
hours preparing five motions to compel along with separate statement; (2)
anticipate 1.0 hour reviewing oppositions, preparing reply briefs and attending
the hearing; and (3) $60.00 for filling fees at an hourly rate of $675.00. Considering
this motion is unopposed, no separate statement was filed for this specific
motion, and the simplicity of this motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
entitled to sanctions in a reduced amount of $500.00.
Therefore, the
Court imposes sanctions against Defendant Kristina Rozina Bonhomme, in favor of
Plaintiff, in the amount of $500.00. Defendant Kristina Rozina Bonhomme must
pay the sanctions within 20 days of this order.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: March 18, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M. TREU
Judge of the
Superior Court