Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2016-00001259-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2016-00001259-CU-NP-CTL BOESGAARD VS. TRENDY DEPARTMENT STORE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration (ROA 765) is GRANTED.

On February 9, 2024, the court heard Plaintiff John Boesgaard's two motions to deem facts admitted based on Defendant's failure to respond to his first and second sets of requests for admissions. (ROA 753.) At hearing, Defendant's counsel argued that the responses had been served shortly before hearing. However, Defendant had provided no evidence that it had served any responses. Accordingly, the court granted both motions.

Defendant asserts there are new and/or different facts and circumstances that justify revisiting the court's February 9, 2024 ruling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) The court agrees. There are new and/or different facts and circumstances because Defendant has now provided evidence that it did serve responses to both sets of Plaintiff's requests for admission on February 1, 2024. (ROA 825, Kawabata Decl., Exh. E.) Having now had the opportunity to review Defendant's responses, which were not before the court at the February 9, 2024 hearing, the court finds the responses are substantially compliant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) 'That some of the responses were less than clear or complete does not detract from that conclusion.' (Tobin v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 814, 827 (footnote omitted), disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birthwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.) Accordingly, the court grants reconsideration and orders Plaintiff's Motions to Deem Admitted its Requests for Admissions, Sets One and Two (ROA 700 and 711) are DENIED on the grounds they are moot, except as to the issue of sanctions. Sanctions are mandatory when the responding party fails to timely respond. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) The court still finds, as it did in its February 9, 2024 ruling, that $550.00 per motion is appropriate, but based on Attorney Kawabata's declaration that he did not inform his client of the discovery requests until well after responses were due (ROA 825, Kawabata Decl. ¶ 5), the court orders Attorney Kawabata to pay the sanctions, totaling $1,100.00, to Plaintiff on or before July 12, 2024.

Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc.'s Motion for Relief (ROA 812) is DENIED on the grounds that it is moot, given the court's ruling granting reconsideration.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3088021  1