Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 23STCV00321, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00321 Hearing Date: February 25, 2025 Dept: 19

Dept. 19

Hon. Rolf Treu, Judge presiding

MENDOZA v. LEEFRAN, INC. (23STCV00321)

Counsel for Plaintiff/moving party: Zorik Mooradian (Mooradian Law, APC)

Counsel for Defendant/opposing party: N/A (Motion Unopposed)

(1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LEEFRAN, INC. TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, SET No. ONE (filed 12/18/24)

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Defendant Leefran, Inc. To Respond To Requests For Production And Identification Of Documents, Propounded By Plaintiff, Set No. One is GRANTED. Defendant Leefran, Inc. is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s Requests For Production And Identification Of Documents, Propounded By Plaintiff, Set No. One, within 20 days of this order.

The Court imposes monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,625.00 against Defendant and his attorney of record, Solomon E. Greeson of RG Lawyers, LLP, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days through Plaintiff's counsel of record. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d); 2023.030(a); 2031.300(c).)

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff Aldo R. Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Leefran, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging the following causes of action:

1. Failure to Pay Overtime;

2. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;

3. Meal Period Violations;

4. Rest Break Violations;

5. Failure to Pay Wages for All Time Worked;

6. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements;

7. Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Separation; and

8. Unfair Business Practices.

On December 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion To Compel Defendant Leefran, Inc. To Respond To Requests For Production And Identification Of Documents, Propounded By Plaintiff, Set No. One (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

A responding party has 30 days after service of interrogatories to serve their responses on the propounding party. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) However, if interrogatories are served by electronic service, a responding party has an additional two (2) court days to respond. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)

If the responding party fails to timely respond to the interrogatories, “The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Furthermore, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) And “Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

B. Discussion

1. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff provides evidence that he electronically served Defendant with his ¿Requests for Identification and Production of Documents, Set No. One on July 15, 2024, that Defendant’s responses were due on August 30, 2024, and that, to date, no responses have been served and no request for an extension has been made. (Zorik Mooradian Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)

Defendant failed to file any opposition, effectively consenting to the merits of the Motion. (See Cal. R. Ct., 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

As such, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

2. Request for Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c) provides, in relevant part, that:

…the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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., § 2031.300(c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 provides that:

A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.

(Code Civ. Proc., 2023.040.)

Given the unopposed and therefore undisputed assertion that Defendant has failed to provide any responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Identification and Production of Documents, Set No. One, the Court finds that the issuance of monetary sanctions is warranted.

Relying on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437), the Court finds the requested $650.00 hourly rate to be reasonable. (See Mooradian Decl. at ¶ 10.)

The Court finds 2.5 hours to prepare and file the instant Motion and supporting declaration to be reasonable. (See id.)

Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for $1,625.00 in sanctions against Defendant and his attorney of record, Solomon E. Greeson of RG Lawyers, LLP, jointly and severally.

III. DISPOSITION