Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV01859, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV01859 Hearing Date: March 6, 2025 Dept: 68
Dept.
68
Date:
3-6-25
Case
#: 24STCV401859
Trial
Date: Not Set
FORM INTERROGATORIES
MOVING
PARTY: Defendant, Fiore Legal, Inc.
RESPONDING
PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Kathleen Coleman
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one)
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
Plaintiff Kathleen Coleman retained Defendants for
contingency recovery representation on a trip and fall case against the City of
Manhattan Beach (19STCV20742). During trial, defense counsel for City of
Manhattan Beach referenced a prior complaint, Coleman v. Sagar (BC592047),
whereby a prior neck and back injury were referenced from the Sagar action. Plaintiff
admits to the back and neck injury as a result of an auto accident in the Sagar
complaint, but maintains the Manhattan Beach action only involved a right knee
injury. Plaintiff contends said prior injuries were improperly admitted into
evidence, thereby leading to a loss of credibility on the damages claim.
Plaintiff accuses Defendants of forging Plaintiff’s signature on the claim form
and/or discovery responses submitted to Manhattan Beach regarding the scope of
damages.
On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed complaint for Breach of
Contract and Negligence. Defendants Fiore Legal, Inc. and Gilbert Perez, Jr.
filed answers to the complaint on April 24, 2024, and May 30, 2024. On October
21, 2024, the parties stipulated to the filing of a first amended complaint.
On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint for Negligence, Breach of Contract, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. On
November 25, 2024, Fiore Legal, Inc., Mauro Fiore Jr. and Gilbert Perez III
answered the first amended complaint. On December 2, 2024, Sweet James, LLP,
James Michael Bergener, and Bergener Mirejovsky, APC, answered the first
amended complaint. On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed Samuel Mirejovsky.
RULING: Granted.
Defendant,
Fiore Legal, Inc. moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) served
on Plaintiff Kathleen Coleman.
Defendant
served Plaintiff individually on July 22, 2024. [Declaration of Olivia Zorayan,
¶ 2, Ex. 1.] At the time of the filing of the motion, no responses were received.
[Ibid. ¶ 8.] Plaintiff in a “response” represents an “agreement” to provide
“further responses” to discovery, and requests no imposition of sanctions. The
court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the
tentative ruling publication cutoff.
Because
the “response” lacks proof of actual service of even initial responses, as
sought in the motion, the court grants the motion. Plaintiff Kathleen Coleman is
ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories (set one), without
objections within ten days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a-b).) IF
Plaintiff establishes proof of service of responses or Defendant concedes to
verified responses, the court will deny the motion and declare the motion moot.
The
court adheres to a policy that where a motion prompts a response, sanctions are
warranted, even assuming compliance prior to the hearing, The court awards to
compensate a moving party for the costs of compelling discovery once the threat
of a court order becomes a motivating incentive to respond, especially as to a
Plaintiff not cooperating in his/her/their own initiated action.
Sanctions
in the amount of $250. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).) Sanctions imposed
joint and severally against both counsel and Plaintiff, and payable within 30
days of this order.
The court will concurrently conduct the OSC re: Related
Case on Fiore Legal, Inc. v. Coleman, 24STCV34358. Motions to compel responses to Special Interrogatories and Request
for Production of Documents on calendar for March 12, 2025.
Fiore
Legal, Inc. to give notice.