Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV14135, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 21STCV14135    Hearing Date: December 16, 2024    Dept: 29

Rodriguez-Palos v. Muyomba
21STCV14135
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
Defendant’s Motion for an Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two)

Tentative

The motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, is granted.

The request for sanctions in the motion to compel is denied.

The motion for a deemed admitted order is denied without prejudice.

The request for sanctions in the motion for a deemed admitted order is denied without prejudice.

Background

On April 13, 2021, Plaintiffs Jaime Rodriguez-Palos (“Rodriguez-Palos”), Rigoberto J. Magana (“Magana”), and Juana Garcia Rolon (“Rolon”) filed a complaint against Henry Muyomba (“Muyomba”), The Estate of Henry Muyomba (“Estate”), Susan Tamale Nantongo (“Nantongo”), Fook Choon Lee (“Lee”), PV Holding Corp. (“PV”), and Does 1 to 100 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising from an alleged automobile accident on May 26, 2019, on the I-5 Freeway in Pacoima, California.

On May 11, 2022, the Court granted the request of Plaintiffs’ counsel Kyle Valero to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Magana and Rolon.  As subsequently clarified, counsel continued, and continues, to represent Plaintiff Rodriguez-Palos.

On July 14, 2022, PV filed its answer.

On August 12, 2022, Lee and PV Holding Corp. filed an answer as well as a cross-complaint against Muyomba, Estate, Nantongo, and Roes 1 through 20.

On November 18, 2022, Nantongo filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On December 21, 2022, the Court, at the request of Plaintiffs, dismissed the claims in the complaint against Nantongo.

On July 27, 2023, new counsel substituted in to represent Plaintiffs Magana and Rolon.

On November 13, 2023, Defendant Lee amended the cross-complaint to name Nantongo as the executor of Estate as Roe 1.

On December 7, 2023, the Court, at the request of Cross-Complainants, dismissed the claim in the cross-complaint against Nantongo.

On December 22, 2023, the Court, at the request of Plaintiffs Magana and Rolon, dismissed the claims in the complaint against PV.

On December 27, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff Rodriguez-Palos filed a notice of settlement of the entire case.  Counsel subsequently clarified that the settlement related only to Plaintiff Rodriguez-Palos, and not the other Plaintiffs.

On April 3, 2024, the Court granted the request of counsel for Plaintiff Magana to be relieved. 

On April 4, 2024, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff Rodriguez-Palos, dismissed his claims.

On June 5, 2024, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff Rolon, dismissed her claims.

On November 8, 2024, Defendant Lee (“Defendant”) filed the two discovery motions that are set for hearing on December 16: (1) a motion to compel Plaintiff Magana (“Plaintiff”) to provide initial responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set Two); and (2) a motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two).  In each motion, Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “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 [the motion], 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., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion [to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission].”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Interrogatories

On June 18, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set Two; on August 28, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set Two. (Garber Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Responses have not been received.

Defendant provides proof of service for each of the interrogatories showing proper service on in pro per Plaintiff.

Defendant need show nothing more.

The motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written interrogatories is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied.  Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and therefore the Court cannot find that he has unsuccessfully opposed the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Motion for Deemed Admitted Order

Defendant’s counsel states that Defendant served Requests for Admission (Set Two) on Plaintiff on August 28, 2024.  (Garber Decl., ¶ 3.)  Defendant does not, however, provide the Court with the Requests for Admission: only the first page is attached to counsel’s declaration, and no proof of service of the Requests for Admission on Plaintiff is attached.

Accordingly, the motion for a deemed admitted order is denied without prejudice.  The request for sanctions is also denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant Lee’s motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Rigoberto J. Magana to provide written, verified, code-complaint responses, without objection, to Defendant Lee’s Form Interrogatories (Set Two) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Rigoberto J. Magana to provide written, verified, code-complaint responses, without objection, to Defendant Lee’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) within 10 days of notice.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for sanctions in the motion to compel.

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant Lee’s motion for a deemed admitted order as to Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set Two).

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s request for sanctions in the motion for a deemed admitted order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.