Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV32808, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32808 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
EVELYN LEMUS, Plaintiff(s), vs.
NUNGARAY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.,
Defendant(s). | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | CASE NO: 22STCV32808
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL
Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. November 28, 2023 |
I. Motion to Compel¿
Plaintiff Evelyn Lemus (“Plaintiff”) propounded form interrogatories, set one, on Defendant Nungaray Enterprises, Inc. (“Nungaray”) on February 1, 2023. Plaintiff unilaterally offered Nungaray an extension up and until April 17, 2023 to provide responses. To date, Nungaray has not responded to Plaintiff’s counsel or served responses. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Nungaray to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.
In opposition, Defendant Nungaray provides that verified responses, without objections, had been served and that the motion is now moot.
In reply, Plaintiff agrees her motion is now moot, but that sanctions are still warranted. Defense counsel contends sanctions are not warranted because defense counsel was transitioning between two paralegals, and discovery was forgotten until the instant motion was filed.
Therefore, the Court will only address the issue of sanctions.
II. Sanctions¿
Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)¿Defense counsel’s in-office issues with their paralegals is not sufficient grounds to find sanctions unwarranted. Plaintiff had to file a motion to compel in order to receive responses after having properly served discovery. Here, Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,560 for the motion.
A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.)
Therefore, Plaintiff is awarded 1 hour to prepare the instant motion, and one hour for the reply and to appear at the hearing together, at the requested rate of $300 per hour, for a total of $600 in attorney’s fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded one motion filing fee of $60 as costs.
Sanctions are imposed against Nungaray Enterprises, Inc. and its attorney of record, jointly and severally. Nungaray Enterprises, Inc. and/or its counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $660, within fifteen (15) days.
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 27th day of November 2023
|
|
| Hon. Michelle C. Kim Judge of the Superior Court
|