Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV32818, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32818    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

BENJAMIN GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV32818 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S (1) MOTIONS TO COMPEL; (2) MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

January 30, 2024 

 

I. Motions to Compel 

Defendant Kathryn M. Balsamo ("Defendant Balsamo”) propounded form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff Benjamin Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) on July 12, 2023. Plaintiff’s responses were due on or before August 13, 2023. On September 21, 2023, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter requesting responses without objection by September 28, 2023. Defense counsel emailed on October 2, 2023 to follow-up after having received no response, and Plaintiff’s counsel indicated they would send responses that week. However, as of the motion filing date, Plaintiff has not served responses. Defendant Balsamo therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. 

Plaintiff opposes the motions, arguing he served verified responses to all the outstanding discovery on October 29, 2023. Defendant Balsamo did not file a reply. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the motion to compel moot in light of the responses served on Defendant Balsamo prior to the hearing. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.) 

The only remaining issue is sanctions. Plaintiff requests that, should the Court award sanctions, monetary sanctions be in the nominal amount of $10. Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿Here, responses were provided late and Defendant Balsamo was not obligated to grant any requests for an extension to serve responses. However, 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.)   

Defendant Balsamo is awarded $240 for each motion to compel, for a total $480 as attorney’s fees. Further, Defendant Balsamo is awarded two motion filing costs of $60, for a total of $120 as costs.  

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record.  Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant Balsamo, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $600, within twenty (20) days. 

 

II. Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted 

On July 12, 2023, Defendant Balsamo served on Plaintiff request for admission (“RFAs”), set one. After receiving no responses, Defendant Balsamo filed the instant motion to deem RFAs admitted against Plaintiff on October 26, 2023.   

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition, declaring that he served verified responses on October 30, 2023. Plaintiff provides a copy of his objection-free responses to Defendant Balsamo’s RFAs, set one, in support thereof. Defendant Balsamo did not file a reply. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Balsamo’s motion to deem RFAs, set one, admitted against Plaintiff is MOOT. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc §2033.280(c); St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.) No sanctions are awarded here.  

 

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 29th day of January 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court