Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STLC00201, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - 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: 23STLC00201    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: 40

23STLC00201 Salisbury Group, Inc., v. Natale Mercuri

Related to 24STCV32790 Natale Mercuri v. Lisa G. Salisbury, et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

                                                  I.          BACKGROUND

       The complaint in -0201 (the “fee action”) alleges that Defendant retained Plaintiff, Salisbury Group, Inc. (“Salisbury”) to provide legal services to Defendant, Natale Mercuri (“Mercuri”) for which Mercuri failed to pay. Salisbury alleges claims for breach of contract and common counts.

       The complaint in the related mater -2790 (the “civil rights action”) alleges that Salisbury filed a federal civil rights complaint on behalf of Mercuri and against Mercuri’s landlord, although the claim did not have merit. The civil rights action was ultimately dismissed after the court granted summary judgment in the landlord’s favor. Mercuri alleges claims for (1) financial elder abuse, (2) fraud and deceit, (3) constructive fraud, and (4) unjust enrichment.

                                                   II.         ARGUMENTS

       Plaintiff Salisbury moves to compel Mercuri to serve further response to the first set of document requests propounded (“RPD”) by Plaintiff, specifically request No. 3 and to impose sanctions against Mercuri and counsel of record. Mercuri untimely served responses resulting in a waiver of all objections, however, Mercuri objected to RPD No. 3.  

       Mercuri’s counsel, Marshall C. Sanders, submits a declaration stating that he was unable to file an opposition by the due date because of unexpected heart surgery in December of 2024 and because he suffered from a related respiratory ailment. Mr. Sanders was unable to physically get to the opposition. Mr. Sanders asks for a four-week continuance to permit the filing of an opposition.

       In reply, Salisbury argues that Mercuri failed to file an opposition. The declaration must be disregarded.

                                                         III.        DISCUSSION

       The hearing on this matter was originally scheduled for January 13, 2025. However, on January 3, 2025, the court related the fee action to the civil rights action, vacated the hearing on this motion and reset it for this date. (M.O. 1/3/25 and 2/7/25.) Therefore, Mr. Sanders had nearly three months to file an opposition by March 28, 2025, the due date based on the April 11, 2025, hearing date.

       A motion to compel further responses to a document request is proper where the requesting party believes the statement of compliance is incomplete, or a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, and/or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 subd. (a).). Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to meet and confer but Mr. Sanders refused to withdraw the improper objection. (Salisbury decl., ¶ 11-14.)

       An untimely response to a document request results in a waiver of objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Salisbury served the document request on August 22, 2024. (Salisbury decl., Ex. A.) Mercuri served verified responses on October 29, 2024, although they were due 30 days after service of the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260.)

                                                       IV.        CONCLUSION

       Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve within 30 days verified, code-compliant responses to RPD No. 3, and production of documents without objection. Sanctions of $92.00 for costs incurred for filing and related fees are imposed against Defendant, Natale Mercuri, and his counsel, Marshall C. Sanders, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff within 30 days.