Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV29265, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29265    Hearing Date: December 9, 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

MOTION

Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super (“Defendant”) moves for an Order compelling Plaintiff Isela Morelia Ibarra (“Plaintiff”) to serve a verified response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within fourteen days of the Court’s Order, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  Defendant additionally moves for an Order issuing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Kelly Lawrence Casado, Esq. of Casado Law Firm, APLC in the amount of $1,140.00, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) 

The Court observes Defendant previously filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s initial response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) on August 4, 2022.  The Court ultimately denied Defendant’s prior motion, without prejudice, on the ground Defendant failed to include a proof of service evidencing the subject Form Interrogatories (Set One) were affirmatively served upon Plaintiff on the date represented.  (Minute Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"), filed November 2, 2022 [“As a preliminary matter, while [Defendant] represents in the declaration in support of the motion that the FROG was served on Plaintiff on March 11, 2022, [Defendant] failed to provide the Court with a copy of the proof of service attendant to the FROG. Accordingly, the Court cannot order Plaintiff to provide responses to the FROG, as there is no sufficient proof that the FROG was served.”].)  Now, the Court finds Defendant’s present Motion properly provides a copy of the proof of service, evidencing the subject Form Interrogatories (Set One) were properly served upon Plaintiff, as more fully discussed below.  (Mafud Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A at p. 9.)

ANALYSIS

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: ¶(a) 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). . . . ¶(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a), (b).)  “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.290, subd. (c).)

Defendant has sufficiently presented evidence in order to award the relief requested.  Defendant demonstrates, on approximately March 11, 2022, Plaintiff was served with Defendants Form Interrogatories (Set One), by and through electronic service upon Plaintiff’s counsel.  (Mafud Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A at p. 9 [proof of service states Form Interrogatories (Set One) was served by electronic service upon kelly@casadolawfirm.com, the email address specified upon Plaintiff’s Complaint as the email address of Plaintiff’s counsel].)  It follows, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff was required to serve a verified response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) no later than April 12, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a) [responding party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days of service], 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B) [time to respond extended by two court days where served by electronic transmission].)  Defendant demonstrates Plaintiff has failed to serve a response by this deadline, and at all.  (Mafud Decl., ¶¶ 5, 9 [“As of the date of this Declaration, Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses to the interrogatories.”].)  Accordingly, Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response to Defendant Form Interrogatories (Set One).  Therefore, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b), Defendant is entitled to an Order compelling Plaintiff’s service of a verified response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), without objections.

The Court additionally concludes Defendant is entitled to an Order issuing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.290, subdivision (c).  (Civ. Proc., § 2023.290, subd. (c).)  Plaintiff has not opposed Defendant’s present Motion and, therefore, the Court is without any reason to conclude that Plaintiff’s failure to serve a response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) was due to substantial justification.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record are ordered to pay a monetary sanction to Defendant in the amount of $420.00 (hourly rate of $180.00 multiplied by 2 hours for preparing the Motion and appearing for hearing, plus $60.00 motion filing fee).  (Mafud Decl., ¶ 11.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses From Plaintiff to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and orders Plaintiff to serve a verified response to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), without objections, within 30 days of notice of this Court’s Orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $420.00 to Defendant, through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of this Court’s Order.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service regarding the same.