Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20STCV09803, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20STCV09803    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 1/9/23                                                  

Case #20STCV09803

 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, Set 5)

Motions filed on 11/23/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jaime Garrido, Nilda Garrido, Mavinelle Garrido and Audrey DeGuzman

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Lilian Yamileth Ramirez

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Lilian Yamileth Ramirez (Defendant) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Set 5, numbers 304-321.  Additionally, Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and/or her attorneys of record, Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in the amount of $1,161.65.

RULINGS:  The hearing will be continued. 

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on the southbound Antelope Valley Freeway State Route 14.  The vehicle driven by Defendant Lilian Yamileth Ramirez (Defendant) struck the vehicle occupied by Plaintiffs Jaime Garrido, Nilda Garrido, Mavinelle Garrido and Audrey DeGuzman (Plaintiffs) while their vehicle was stopped near the center median.  The traffic collision report attributes fault for the collision to Defendant.  Plaintiffs allege they were injured as a result of the collision and filed this action to recover their damages.  Defendant answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint for apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and indemnification against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jaime Garrido and Roes 1-50.

On 9/8/22, Plaintiffs served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set 5.  (Kahl Decl. ¶1, Ex.A).  On 10/7/22, by electronic transmission, Defendant served responses which Plaintiffs found to be defective. (Id. ¶3, Ex.C).  On 11/11/22, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding the unverified responses;  however, Defendant failed to respond.  (Id. ¶¶4-5, Ex.D). 

Therefore, on 11/23/22, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Set 5, numbers 304-321.  Additionally, Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant and/or her attorneys of record, Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in the amount of $1,161.65.  An opposition to the motion was due to be filed and served on or before 12/23/22, 9 court days before the 1/9/23 hearing date.  CCP 1005(b).  No opposition appears in the court file.  (See eCourt “Documents”).  However, a reply was filed on 12/30/22 which indicates that an opposition was served on and received by Plaintiffs’ counsel.  (See Reply, p.3:13-17, p.5:1, p.5:12).

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the motion will be continued to allow Defendant to file a copy of her opposition with the Court so that it can be reviewed before a ruling on the merits is made.  Defendant is ordered to file the opposition today (1/9/23). 

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel is, again, reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.  When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.  See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  Plaintiffs have failed to bookmark the declaration and exhibits attached to the motion.  (See 8/30/22 Minute Order).  Continued failure to comply with these requirements may result in  matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.