Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 20PSCV00334, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 20PSCV00334 Hearing Date: December 5, 2022 Dept: O
1. Plaintiff Jennifer Buckley, Trustee of the Frank Raymond Restivo Revocable Trust Dated May 2010’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Requests for Admission [Set One] is GRANTED. Defendant Tracy is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Nos. 4-13, 15, 16 and 18 within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $515.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.
2. Plaintiff Jennifer Buckley, Trustee of the Frank Raymond Restivo Revocable Trust Dated May 2010’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Form Interrogatories [Set One] is GRANTED. Defendant Tracy is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $515.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.
3. Plaintiff Jennifer Buckley, Trustee of the Frank Raymond Restivo Revocable Trust Dated May 2010’s Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories [Set One] is GRANTED. Defendant Tracy is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Nos. 3-15 within 20 days from the date of the hearing. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $515.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.
Background
1. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Requests for Admission
Legal Standard
“[T]he party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that . . . (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete [and/or] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)
The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(2).)
Notice of the motion must be provided “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Tracy to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set No. One (i.e., Nos. 4-13, 15, 16 and 18). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Tracy and her counsel of record in the amount of $515.00.
Plaintiff’s counsel Jessica Zubiate-Beauchamp (“J. Zubiate-Beauchamp”) represents as follows: On April 20, 2022, Plaintiff served the subject discovery. (J. Zubiate-Beauchamp Decl., ¶ 2.) On May 25, 2022, J. Zubiate-Beauchamp granted opposing counsel Calvin Love’s (“Love”) request for an extension to June 1, 2022. (Id., ¶ 3.) On June 1, 2022, J. Zubiate-Beauchamp received Tracy’s unverified responses, which had been electronically served. (Id., ¶ 4.) On June 28, 2022, J. Zubiate-Beauchamp sent a meet and confer letter to Love. (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Love never responded to this letter. (Id., ¶ 6.) The instant motion followed on July 19, 2022.
Request for Admission No. 4 asks Tracy to admit that Covina Coin received money in the form of checks and cash from Frank between 2007 and 2018. No. 5 asks Tracy to admit that the money in cash and checks that Covina Coin received from Frank between 2007 and 2018 constituted a loan from Frank that needed to be repaid. No. 6 asks Tracy to admit that, during Frank’s lifetime, she and/or Leroy verbally agreed to repay the amounts lent to Covina Coin by Frank. No. 7 asks Tracy to admit that there was a verbal agreement and understanding between herself, Leroy and Frank that she was to repay the amounts lent to Covina Coin by Frank in full.
No. 8 asks Tracy to admit that, during Frank’s lifetime, she began to repay a portion of the amount that Frank lent to Covina Coin in the form of checks written from Covina Coin. No. 9 asks Tracy to admit that, between 2007 and 2018, she had authority to sign checks and documents on behalf of Covina Coin. No. 10 asks Tracy to admit that, between October 2017 and August 2018, she gave Frank signed checks from Covina Coin with pre-written amounts. No. 11 asks Tracy to admit that she purposely did not include a date on the following checks she gave Frank between October 2017 and October 2018: Check Nos. 76223, 76341, 76516, 76517, 76601, and 76955 (hereinafter "undated checks"). No. 12 asks Tracy to admit that the undated checks she gave to Frank were given to Frank with the intention that Frank deposit those checks periodically for repayment of his loan to Covina Coin and not all at one time. No. 13 asks Tracy to admit that, at the time of his death, Frank had not deposited checks that she wrote to him which, when combined, totaled $277,115.00.
No. 15 asks Tracy to admit that she was aware that Frank created and kept a handwritten document setting forth the amount of money he lent to her and the amount she had repaid. No. 16 asks Tracy to admit that, at the time of Frank’s death, Covina Coin still owed him money. No. 18 asks Tracy to admit that she has not repaid any of the outstanding amounts due to Frank since his date of death.
Here, the requests seek admissions regarding the amounts of money received from Frank, the purpose for signing checks to Frank and acknowledging the alleged verbal agreement to repay Frank. Tracy provided objection-only responses to Nos. 4-13, 15 and 16; with respect to No. 18, Tracy claimed that she was “not able to admit or deny” same based on interposed objections. Tracy, however, has failed to oppose the instant motion whatsoever; as such, she has failed to meet her burden of justifying any of her objections.
The motion, then, is granted in full. Tracy is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Nos. 4-13, 15, 16 and 18 within 20 days from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Tracy and her counsel of
record in the amount of $515.00
[calculated as follows: 2 hours meeting/conferring, plus 3.9 hours preparing motions, plus 2 hours preparing for/attending hearing at $350.00, plus $180.00 total filing fees, divided as follows amongst the 3 motions: $515.00 for Motion #1, $515.00 for Motion #2 and $1,915.00 for Motion #3.]
The court will award $515.00 in sanctions. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.
2. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Form Interrogatories
Legal Standard
“[T]he propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . . (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[,] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[, and/or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)
Notice of the motion must be provided “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d 210 at 220-221.)
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Tracy to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One (i.e., Nos. 15.1 and 17.1). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Tracy and her counsel of record in the amount of $515.00.
See synopsis of Motion #1.
No. 15.1 asks Tracy to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in her pleadings and to state all facts upon which she bases the denial or special or affirmative defense, the names and contact information of all persons who have knowledge of these facts and the documents that support her denial or special or affirmative defense. No. 17.1 asks Tracy to provide facts and to identify persons and documents supporting each response to the accompanying Requests for Admissions that is not unqualified.
Tracy provided objection-only responses to the foregoing Judicial Council form interrogatories. Tracy has failed to oppose the instant motion whatsoever; as such, she has failed to meet her burden of justifying any of her objections.
The motion is granted in full. Tracy is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 within 20 days from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Tracy and her counsel of record in the amount of $515.00 [calculated as follows: 2 hours meeting/conferring, plus 3.9 hours preparing motions, plus 2 hours preparing for/attending hearing at $350.00, plus $180.00 total filing fees, divided as follows amongst the 3 motions: $515.00 for Motion #1, $515.00 for Motion #2 and $1,915.00 for Motion #3.]
The court will award $515.00 in sanctions. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.
3. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Special Interrogatories
Legal Standard
See Motion #2.
Discussion
Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Tracy to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One (i.e., Nos. 3-15). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Tracy and her counsel of record in the amount of $1,915.00.
See synopsis of Motion #1.
No. 3 asks Tracy if she contends that she does not owe any money to Frank or his estate. Nos. 4-6 respectively ask Tracy for facts, witnesses and documents supporting her contention that she does not owe any money to Frank or his estate.
No. 7 asks Tracy if she contends that Covina Coin does not owe any money to Frank or his estate. Nos. 8-10 respectively ask Tracy for facts, witnesses and documents supporting her contention that Covina Coin does not owe any money to Frank or his estate.
Nos. 11-13 respectively ask Tracy to identify the name, address and type of account for the financial institution where she deposited funds Frank paid to her or Leroy between 2007 and 2010, between 2011 and 2014 and between 2015 and 2018.
Nos. 14 and 15 apparently identically ask Tracy to identify the location of any funds Frank paid to her or Leroy that were not deposited into a financial account.
Here, the interrogatories seek information regarding Traci’s contentions in this litigation, as well as information regarding the whereabouts of monies Frank paid to Traci and Leroy. Tracy provided objection-only responses to Nos. 3-15. Tracy has failed to oppose the instant motion whatsoever; as such, she has failed to meet her burden of justifying any of her objections.
The motion is granted in full. Tracy is to provide further, Code-compliant responses to Nos. 3-15 within 20 days from the date of the hearing.
Sanctions
Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Tracy and her counsel of record in the amount of $515.00 [calculated as follows: 2 hours meeting/conferring, plus 3.9 hours preparing motions, plus 2 hours preparing for/attending hearing at $350.00, plus $180.00 total filing fees, divided as follows amongst the 3 motions: $515.00 for Motion #1, $515.00 for Motion #2 and $1,915.00 for Motion #3.]
The court will award $515.00 in
sanctions. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of
ruling.