Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV02859, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV02859    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc.    

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling defendant Kittrich Corporation (“Defendant”) to provide initial responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $1,747.50.

If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2030.290, subd. (b).)¿¿ 

The court finds that Plaintiff has not presented evidence to establish that it served Defendant with its Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Plaintiff asserts that it propounded its first set of Form Interrogatories on Defendant on February 4, 2022.  (Rasiah Decl., ¶ 2.)  However, the evidence submitted by Plaintiff does not establish that Defendant was served with Plaintiff’s discovery.  First, the Proof of Service is incomplete, because it does not state the method by which the discovery was served.  (Rasiah Decl., Ex. A, Proof of Service, p. 2.)  Second, the email communication submitted by Plaintiff does not establish that Defendant was served or otherwise cure this defect.  While this email states that Plaintiff’s form and special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production directed to defendant Midland Hardware Company No. 4 were attached and therefore establishes that defendant Midland was served with Plaintiff’s discovery, there is no reference to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories as directed to Defendant.  (Rasiah Decl., Ex. B.)  

Thus, the court finds that the evidence presented to the court does not establish that defendant Kittrich Corporation was served with Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, as directed to it.  The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s initial responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

ORDER

The court denies plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc.’s motion to compel defendant Kittrich Corporation to provide initial responses to form interrogatories.

The court orders plaintiff Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 30, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court