Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV38242, Date: 2022-10-25 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: 21STCV38242    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiff Brianna Suarez

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Phillip Abdoush

(1)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Employment)

(2)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (General)

(3)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions

(4)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

(5)   Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion. 

BACKGROUND

            On October 18, 2021, plaintiff Brianna Suarez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jose Dalprat, a professional medical corporation dba Rejuvenate Wellness and Health Center, Femcare Health & Beauty—Burbank, Rebeca Cuatro, Joel Elias, and Phillip Abdoush.

            On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed five motions to compel further discovery responses from defendant Phillip Abdoush (“Defendant”). 

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Employment), Form Interrogatories (General), Requests for Admission, Requests for Production of Documents, and Special Interrogatories.  Plaintiff further requests that the court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant in connection with each of her pending motions.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (EMPLOYMENT)

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Employment) numbers 216.1 and 217.1, and (2) imposing sanctions against Defendant in the sum of $1,310.  In opposition, Defendant requests the court impose sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $745.  (Kanno Decl., ¶ 21.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as moot because Plaintiff states in her reply that Defendant “served code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s” form interrogatories on August 29, 2022, leaving only the issues of sanctions.  (Reply, p. 2:18-19.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant.  The court finds that $935 (1.75 hours x $500 hourly rate + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of monetary sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (GENERAL)

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (General) numbers 2.3 through 2.7, 2.11, 4.1, 12.1, and 15.1, and (2) imposing sanctions against Defendant in the sum of $2,810.  In opposition, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $745.  (Kanno Decl., ¶ 20.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as moot because Plaintiff states in her reply that Defendant served code-compliant responses on August 29, 2022.  (Reply, p. 2:18-19.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant.  The court finds that $2,060 (4 hours x $500 hourly rate + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, numbers 32 through 35, and (2) imposing sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the sum of $2,810.  In opposition, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $745.  (Kanno Decl., ¶ 20.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as moot because Plaintiff state in her reply that code-compliant responses were served on August 29, 2022.  (Lotardo Reply Decl., ¶ 6.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant.  The court finds that $810 (1.5 hours x $500 hourly rate + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

The court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 3, 23, 25, 26, 40, 42 through 44, 48 through 60, 65, 72, and 75 through 77, and (2) imposing sanctions against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff in the sum of $2,810.  Defendant requests the court impose sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $745.

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as moot because Defendant provided supplemental responses on August 29, 2022.  (Reply, p. 2:18-20.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant.  The court finds that $1,560 (3 hours x $500 hourly rate + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

The court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, numbers 7, 9, 25 through 27, 36, 37, 41 through 45, 54, and 55, and (2) imposing sanctions against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff in the sum of $2,810.  In opposition, Defendant requests the court impose sanctions against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant in the sum of $746.  (Kanno Decl., ¶ 20.)

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as moot because Defendant served supplemental responses on August 29, 2022.  (Reply, p. 2:18-19.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant.  The court finds that $2,060 (4 hours x $500 hourly rate + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

The court denies Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff.

ORDER

The court denies plaintiff Brianna Suarez’s motion to compel further discovery to form interrogatories (general) as moot. 

The court denies plaintiff Brianna Suarez’s motion to compel further discovery to form interrogatories (employment) as moot.

The court denies plaintiff Brianna Suarez’s motion to compel further discovery to requests for admission as moot.

The court denies plaintiff Brianna Suarez’s motion to compel further discovery to requests for production of documents as moot. 

The court denies plaintiff Brianna Suarez’s motion to compel further discovery to special interrogatories as moot.

The court grants plaintiff Brianna Suarez’s requests for sanctions made in her motions to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s discovery.  The court orders defendant Phillip Abdoush to pay monetary sanctions to plaintiff Brianna Suarez in the total amount of $7,425 within 30 days of the date of this order.

The court orders plaintiff Brianna Suarez to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 25, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court