Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 22CHCV01032, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01032, Date: 2023-12-08 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: 22CHCV01032 Hearing Date: December 8, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 12/8/23 TRIAL DATE: 5/6/24

Case #22CHCV01032

8 DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Motions filed on 7/14/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Danny’s Crane, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY # 1: Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez

RESPONDING PARTY # 2: Plaintiff Joseph Gutierrez

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED:

(1) An order compelling Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez to provide responses to Defendant Danny’s Crane Inc.’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Yessica and/or her counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C., in the amount of $2,935.00;

(2) An order compelling Plaintiff Joseph Gutierrez to provide responses to Defendant Danny’s Crane Inc.’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Joseph and/or his counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C., in the amount of $2,935.00;

(3) An order compelling Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez to provide responses to Defendant Danny’s Crane Inc.’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Yessica and/or her counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C., in the amount of $2,935.00;

(4) An order compelling Plaintiff Joseph Gutierrez to provide responses to Defendant Danny’s Crane Inc.’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Joseph and/or his counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C., in the amount of $2,935.00;

(5) An order compelling Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez to provide responses to Defendant Danny’s Crane Inc.’s Requests for Production, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Yessica and/or her counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C., in the amount of $2,935.00;

(6) An order compelling Plaintiff Joseph Gutierrez to provide responses to Defendant Danny’s Crane Inc.’s Requests for Production, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Joseph and/or his counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C., in the amount of $2,935.00;

(7) An order compelling Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez to provide responses to Defendant Danny’s Crane Inc.’s Requests for Admissions, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Yessica and/or her counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C., in the amount of $2,935.00; and

(8) An order compelling Plaintiff Joseph Gutierrez to provide responses to Defendant Danny’s Crane Inc.’s Requests for Admissions, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Joseph and/or his counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C., in the amount of $2,935.00.

RULING: The motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories are granted as set forth below. The motions to compel responses to Requests for Production and Requests for Admissions are denied without prejudice.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez (Yessica) and Joseph Gutierrez’s (Joseph) (collectively, Plaintiffs) claim that they were injured as a result of a car accident involving a vehicle owned by Defendant Danny’s Crane (Defendant).

On 5/9/23, Defendant served written discovery on both Plaintiffs making responses due on or before 6/12/23. (Kurtz Decls.). On 6/15/23, Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the failure to serve responses, among other things. Id. While Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated he would get back to Defendant’s counsel regarding the overdue responses, he never did. Id. On 6/30/23, Defendant’s counsel sent another meet and confer letter regarding the overdue responses to which Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to respond. Id. On 7/10/23, Defendant’s counsel sent another email regarding the overdue responses. Id. On 7/13/23, Plaintiffs’ counsel responded by requesting an extension to respond. Id. By that time, Defendant’s counsel had already incurred essentially all of its fees associated with drafting the 8 discovery motions. Id. The motions indicate that if Plaintiffs’ counsel agrees to pay such fees, the motions will be withdrawn after payment.

On 7/14/23, Defendant filed and served on Plaintiffs the following 8 discovery motions:

The motions were originally scheduled for separate hearing dates beginning on 11/29/23 and ending on 12/8/23. At the 8/8/23 Case Management Conference, the Court advanced the hearing dates for the motions not originally scheduled for 12/8/23 and continued them to 12/8/23. (See 8/8/23 Nunc Pro Tunc Minute Order). The Court specifically ordered that the “[b]riefing scheduled is governed by the original hearing dates as to each motion.” (Id., p.2). Despite the foregoing, on 12/5/23, Yessica filed and served late oppositions to the motions addressed to her. The filing and service of the oppositions on 12/5/23 is late even as to the 12/8/23 hearing date as oppositions are due at least 9 court days before the hearing date plus two court days for electronic service. CCP 1005(b); CCP 1010.6(a)(3)(B). The late filing and service of the oppositions did not provide Defendant with sufficient time to reply to same.

ANALYSIS

Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to provide timely responses to the subject Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, Defendant is entitled to orders compelling each Plaintiff to provide responses without objections. CCP 2023.290(a), (b). Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with their discovery obligations, Defendant is also entitled to an award of sanctions in relation to the motions to compel responses regarding Form and Special Interrogatories. CCP 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), 2030.290(c).

While Defendant would be entitled to the same relief due to Plaintiffs’ failure to serve responses to Requests for Production, Defendant failed to cite the applicable statute to support such relief. Rather, Defendant, again, relies on CCP 2030.290 which applies to interrogatories. (See Motion to Compel Re Requests for Production – Yessica, p.5:1, p.5:7-8; Motion to Re Requests for Production - Joseph, p.4:28, p.5:6-7). CCP 2031.300 applies to motions to compel responses to requests for production.

Similarly, Defendant fails to cite the proper authority with regard to the motions concerning Requests for Admissions. Again, Defendant improperly cites CCP 2030.290. (See Motion to Compel Re Requests for Admissions – Yessica, p.5:1, p.5:7-8; Motion to Re Requests for Admissions - Joseph, p.4:28, p.5:6-7). Further, there is no statute which provides for an order compelling initial responses to Requests for Admissions. Rather, CCP 2033.280, which was not cited by Defendant, provides authority for the Court to deem matters admitted, if no responses are served.

The late oppositions to the motions addressed to Yessica indicate that she has already served verified responses to the discovery and, therefore, claim that imposing sanctions would not be justified. The oppositions do not attach copies of the discovery responses nor do they indicate when such responses were served. If responses were only recently served, the oppositions fail to explain the five-month delay from the time Plaintiffs’ counsel realized they had not received the discovery because the emails in which they were sent were flagged as “spam” and the filing of the oppositions. (See Elmassian Decls.). Similarly, if the responses were only recently served, the oppositions claim that Defendant has no issue with same is somewhat disingenuous as Defendant would not have had sufficient time to determine if the responses are sufficient. (See Oppositions, p.3:15-16). The oppositions also fail to explain why they were filed and served late which caused the Court to have to review the matters twice.

No oppositions/responses to the motions addressed to Joseph have been filed. However, in Yessica’s oppositions, the attorney declarations claim that “[t]he motions were hastily prepared as they even requested verified responses from Joseph Gutierrez who is three years old.” (See Elmassian Decls.). If Joseph is in fact only three years old, Plaintiffs’ counsel should have known minors must appear in court actions either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court. See CCP 372(a)(1). The court file does not indicate that Joseph is appearing in this action through a proper representative.

CONCLUSION

4 MOTIONS RE FORM & SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

The motions to compel Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez and Jospeh Gutierrez to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, and Special Interrogatories, Set 1, are granted. Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez and Plaintiff Joseph Gutierrez are each ordered to provide responses, without objections, to the subject Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories within 30 days.

With regard to the Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories motions, sanctions are imposed on Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez and her counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C., in the amount of $995.00 (2.5 hours to prepare the motions, .5 hour to meet and confer, .5 hours to appear multiplied by $250/hour +$120 ($60 for each motion) filing fees).

With regard to the Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories motions, sanctions are imposed on Plaintiff Joseph Gutierrez’s counsel of record, including Albert Elmassian and Mendez & Sanchez, A.P.C. (since Joseph is a minor and counsel has failed to have a properly represent his interest), in the amount of $995.00 (2.5 hours to prepare the motions, .5 hour to meet and confer, .5 hours to appear multiplied by $250/hour +$120 ($60 for each motion) filing fees). Sanctions are payable within 30 days.

2 MOTIONS RE REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

The motions to compel Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez and Joseph Gutierrez to provide responses to Requests for Production, Set 1, are denied without prejudice to Defendant filing properly supported motions for such relief.

2 MOTIONS RE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

The motions to compel Plaintiff Yessica Cardoza Gutierrez and Joseph Gutierrez to provide responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1, are denied without prejudice to Defendant making proper motions to deem matters admitted.