Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV22148, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 23STCV22148    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: 40

23STCV22148 Mireya Lopez Sanchez v. FCA US LLC, et al

Tuesday, November 19, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FCA US, LLC TO:

1.     SERVE REPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

2.     SERVE RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

3.     SERVE RESPONSES AND PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS DEMANDED

4.     DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS IN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

I.       BACKGROUND

      Plaintiff alleges that Defendant issued a written warranty in connection with Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2018 Dodge Grand Caravan. The vehicle developed defects that Defendant could not repair and did not repurchase or replace the vehicle. Plaintiff alleges claims for violations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”).

II.     ARGUMENTS

      Plaintiff served all the discovery at issue on November 17, 2023. Defendant failed to serve verified responses by December 22, 2023. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant failed to respond or serve verified responses.

      Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not suffered any prejudice from the delayed responses to all discovery at issue October 3, 2024. The “oversight” was due to counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Imposition of sanctions are not warranted.

      In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not shown evidence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Defendant cannot show excusable neglect because the responses to form interrogatories were verified on June 17, 2024, but Defendant served them October 3, 2024.

III.    DISCUSSION

      Where a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories and a document request, the court has authority to compel a response. (Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290(b), §2031.300(b).). Untimely responses result in a waiver of objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a), § 2031.300(a).) The parties do not dispute that Defendant has since served verified responses without objections to the form and special interrogatories and document request, albeit nearly one year after Plaintiff served the requests.  Therefore, an order compelling responses is no longer necessary.

      Where a party fails to respond to requests for admission, the court can deem the requests admitted against the non-responding party unless it finds that the non-responding party has subsequently served, before the hearing, a proposed response to the requests that substantially complies with statutory requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (c).) Imposition of sanctions is mandatory where a party’s failure to respond to the requests necessitates the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (c). )

      Since Defendant served verified responses, an order deeming matters admitted against Defendant is DENIED. 

      Plaintiff, however, is entitled to the imposition of sanctions against Defendant for fees and costs incurred. Defendant has not shown any evidence that counsel failed to timely respond because of “counsel’s” mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Counsel’s declaration is devoid of any facts relevant to excusable neglect. (Gregory G. Brezovec Decl.)

IV.   CONCLUSION

      Accordingly, Plaintiff’s four motions to compel responses from Defendant is GRANTED. The court finds that $350 per hour is a reasonable rate. The court finds that two hours to prepare each motion and reply brief is reasonable. The court permits .5 hours to appear. Accordingly, Defendant, FC US LLC, is ordered to pay to Plaintiff within 10 days, total sanctions of $2975.00, (8.5 hours x $350) incurred in preparing four motions.