Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 24STCV21350, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV21350 Hearing Date: February 27, 2025 Dept: 19

Dept. 19

Hon. Rolf Treu, Judge presiding

FORTE, et al. v. SHAMS, et al. (24STCV21350)

Counsel for Defendant/moving party: Karen Brockenbrow (Law Offices of Schneider & Hosmer)

Counsel for Plaintiff/opposing parties: N/A (Motion Unopposed)

(1) DEFENDANT KATYA SHAMS’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ALESIA FORTE TO ANSWER FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (filed 12/12/24)

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Katya Shams’s Motion For Order To Compel Plaintiff Alesia Forte To Answer Form Interrogatories Set One; Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Alesia Forte is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Defendant Katya Shams’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days of this order.

The Court imposes monetary sanctions in the amount of $640.00 against Plaintiff Alesia Forte and her counsel of record, Ardy Pirnia, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days through Defendant Katya Shams’s counsel of record. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d); 2023.030(a); 2031.300(c).)

Counsel for Defendant Katya Shams to give notice.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 22, 2024, Plaintiffs Alesia Forte, Algerina Elizabeth Perry, Shaun T Perry, and April Perry (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against Defendants Katya Shams and Shahryar Shams (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1. Negligence; and

2. Negligence Per Se.

On December 12, 2024, Defendant Katya Shams filed the instant “Motion For Order To Compel Plaintiff Alesia Forte To Answer Form Interrogatories Set One; Request For Sanctions” (the “Motion”).

No opposition was filed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)¿

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)¿

It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) (Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.); Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 (noting a 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).)¿

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)¿

B. Discussion

1. Motion to Compel

Defendant Katya Shams provides evidence that her Form Interrogatories, Set One were electronically served on Plaintiff Alesia Forte on September 27, 2024 but that, to date, no responses have been served. (Karen Brockenbrow Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, Ex. A.)

Plaintiff Alesia Forte 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 Plaintiff Alesia Forte has failed to provide any responses to Defendant Katya Shams’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, the Court finds that the issuance of monetary sanctions is warranted.

The Court finds the requested $160.00 hourly rate is reasonable. (Brockenbrow Decl. at ¶ 6.)

The Court finds 4.0 hours to prepare and file the instant Motion and supporting declaration and to appear at the hearing to be reasonable. (See id.)

Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant Katya Shams’s request for $640.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff Alesia Forte and her counsel of record, Ardy Pirnia, jointly and severally.

III. DISPOSITION