Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00785, Date: 2024-12-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00785    Hearing Date: December 31, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                    December 31, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                      23TRCV00785

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                           Christina Maier, et al. v. Kate Dunitz, et al.  

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                (1) Plaintiffs, Christina Maier, Tierney Mauge, and Traci Maier

RESPONDING PARTY:        (1) Defendant, Kate Dunitz

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       May 19, 2025

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion for Sanctions.

Tentative Rulings:                     (1) Plaintiffs’ Requests for Sanctions is granted in the total amount of $1,000.  Sanctions are payable by Defendant to counsel for Plaintiff on or before January 15, 2025

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiffs, Christina Maier, Tierney Mauge, and Traci Maier (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Kate Dunitz, and DOES 1 through 10. On August 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Conversion; (2) Defamation (Slander); and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff, Christina Maier propounded Form Interrogatories, Set Three and Requests for Admission on Defendant. Responses by Defendant were due on or before January 5, 2024. However, on January 14, 2024, Plaintiff notes that Defense Counsel emailed objections with no responses to each of the discovery requests. Plaintiffs note that on February 1, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter, but that despite this, there has been no response or any attempt to resolve the matter.

In Defendant’s opposition briefs, the Declaration of Thomas Carter (“Carter Decl.”), defense counsel, it notes that since the filing of the motions, Defendant Donitz has served verified, amended responses to each set of discovery that is subject to each of the motions. (Carter Decl., ¶ 2.) Carter further notes that he has provided Plaintiffs with verifications for each previously served response as well as the amended responses on the very day those verifications became available. (Carter Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3.)

The Motions to Compel Initial Responses were heard on August 16, 2024, where this Court deemed them mooted by the service of verified responses to discovery requests prior to the hearing. However, this Court acknowledged that the service of those verified responses did not moot the sanctions requests. As such, Plaintiffs move now on a Motion for those sanctions.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

These motions were originally heard on August 16, 2024, where this Court deemed the motions to compel initial responses mooted but continued the requests for sanctions.

On December 13, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion for Sanctions.

On December 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.  

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

            As the Court explained in the August 16, 2024 minute order, it will not be awarding the excessive amount sought by Plaintiffs for monetary sanctions. Instead, it will be awarding $1,000 total for the motions to compel further responses, not the improper motions to compel initial responses which were filed after the moving party had already received initial responses.