Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV49362, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49362    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Franco Tapia (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, against each of Defendants Anthony Clark Chavis (“Chavis”), Michael A. Fuchs (“Fuchs”), and Robin Osten (“Osten”).  Additionally, Plaintiff moves to compel responses to request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, and to deem request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, admitted against Osten.  Plaintiff propounded the discovery on each of the Defendants on June 30, 2022.  As of the filing of these motions, Defendants have not served responses to the subject discovery.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendants to each to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs and deeming the RFAs admitted against Osten.

            Chavis, Fuchs, and Osten filed oppositions to each motion.  Defendants aver that Plaintiff’s motions were served without proper notice because they did not provide the 16 court days’ notice required under CCP § 1005.  Defendants contend they thus had insufficient time to prepare their oppositions and resolve the issues informally.  Further, Defendants contend that sanctions are not warranted against them. 

            In reply, Plaintiff seemingly admits that Plaintiff’s motions were not timely filed. 

            Plaintiff filed and electronically served the instant motions on March 20, 2023, which was only 14 court days before the hearing.  “Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.”  (CCP § 1005(b).)  Additionally, “Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days.”  (CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).)  Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to file and serve the moving papers by March 14, 2023.  (CCP §§ 1005(b), 1010.6(a)(3)(B).)  Plaintiff, thus, failed to give sufficient notice of the motions to Defendants.  Plaintiff fails to cite any authority showing the Court has the authority to rule on the motions despite the improper notice given by Plaintiff. 

Therefore, the motions are denied without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing the motions after complying with all applicable statutes and giving proper notice of the moving papers.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 10^th day of April 2023