Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV17181, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17181    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            Defendant Gene Bae move to compel responses from plaintiffs Yerick Miguel Juan, Cory Beatriz Juan, Alfredo Miguel, Axel Miguel Juan, and Allen Miguel Juan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”).  Defendant requests monetary sanctions.  Plaintiffs have not filed oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he 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 the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

Here, Defendant has not filed the respective proofs of service to establish the date and manner of service of the FROG on Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine whether Defendant properly served the FROG on Plaintiffs and, if so, when Plaintiffs’ responses were due.  The Court therefore denies the motions without prejudice as procedurally defective.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.