Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00658, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00658    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-28-22

Case #21CHCV00658

Trial Date: 2-21-23

COMPEL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Edwin George

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Richard Valles

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On an unspecified date, Plaintiff Edwin George alleges entering into an oral contract with Defendant Richard Valles for the restoration and sale of a 1959 El Camino vehicle in exchange for $55,000. Plaintiff alleges making payments in various installments from December 29, 2017 through December 31, 2018, but the vehicle was not restored or delivered.

On August 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint for Breach of Contract (sales), and common counts. On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Unique Twist Auto Body and Paint.

RULING: Denied / Off-Calendar / Granted as to sanctions

Plaintiff Edwin George moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) from defendant Richard Valles.

Plaintiff served Defendant on February 24, 2022. [Declaration of James Mellein, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.] Plaintiff represents no responses were served at the time of the filing of the motion. [Id., ¶ 13.]

Defendant in opposition maintains responses were served on May 25, 2022. Upon receipt of the motion, Defendant again served responses. Counsel requests the court refrain from imposing sanctions.

Plaintiff in reply maintains efforts to obtain the responses prior to filing the motion. Plaintiff seeks responses without objections, and sanctions.

The court also finds the subsequent verification renders the motion moot, and declines to order further responses without objections.

"Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300."

(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

The May 25, 2022, proof of service shows a typographical error in the address. While the parcel was not returned, the court accepts the declaration of moving counsel that it was never received. The court also takes into account the medical circumstances of counsel and the later family travel impacting follow-up. Nevertheless, because the motion was properly prompted, the court’s policy is the imposition of sanctions where applicable. The court therefore imposes sanctions in the amount of $150 joint and several against Richard Valles and counsel of record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Payable within 30 days.

Trial remains set for February 21, 2023.

Plaintiff to give notice.