Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV05894, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05894    Hearing Date: July 21, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

CARLOS ALBERTO PEREZ, ET AL., 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

AL VAUGHN WILDER JACKSON, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV05894 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL STATEMENT OF DAMAGES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

June 21, 2023 

 

  1. Background 

Plaintiffs Carlos Alberto Perez and Thelma Ramirez (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Alvaughn Wilder Jackson and County of Los Angeles, erroneously sued separately as County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. 

Defendants County of Los Angeles, erroneously sued separately as County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“the County”) attests that it served Requests for Statement of Damages on Plaintiffs on September 15, 2022, but Plaintiffs did not respond.  The County now moves to compel Plaintiffs to serve the statement of damages. Plaintiffs oppose the motions, and the County replies. 

However, since the filing of the motions, the parties agree that Plaintiffs served the Statements of Damages to the County on May 1, 2023 and May 3, 2023. Therefore, the motions to compel the Statements of Damages is moot.  

The only remaining issue is the award of sanctions to the County for bringing its motions. In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that there is no provision to recover attorneys’ fees or costs in connection with these motions. Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants were required to meet and confer prior to bringing its motions to compel.  

 

B. Statement of Damages 

CCP §425.11(b) provides in relevant part: 

“When a complaint is filed in an action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the defendant may at any time request a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages being sought. The request shall be served upon the plaintiff, who shall serve a responsive statement as to the damages within 15 days. In the event that a response is not served, the defendant, on notice to the plaintiff, may petition the court in which the action is pending to order the plaintiff to serve a responsive statement.” 

 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, there is no requirement that the County meet and confer prior to bringing its motion to compel. As for reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs, the County requests sanctions of $2,448.50 for these proceedings. CCP § 425.11 does not provide for sanctions in connection with this motion, and this matter is outside of the Discovery Act and its sanctions provisions.  However, the County asserts dictum in Argame v. Werasophon (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 616, supports an award of such costs.  In Argame, the Court of Appeal stated in a footnote, after noting the defendants did not move to compel the plaintiff to provide a statement of damages, that: 

“Obviously, defendants should not have been placed in a position where they were obligated to make a motion to obtain information to which they were lawfully entitled. Considering counsel's disregard for the requirements of section 425.11 displayed here, the court would have been justified in requiring Argame (or more appropriately her counsel) to reimburse defendants for costs incurred in making such a motion.” 

(Id. at 618 fn. 3.)   

Although the County should not have been forced to file these motions to obtain this information from Plaintiffs, this portion of the Argame ruling is dictum. Defendant does not otherwise provide relevant authority showing monetary sanctions are appropriate in connection with this motion.    

 

Accordingly, the County’s request for sanctions is denied. 

 

Moving party 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 20th day of July 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court