Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV36070, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36070    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production
Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Admitted as True the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission
Court’s OSC re Substitution of Party in Place of Deceased Plaintiff
Court’s OSC re Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff’s Counsel

Tentative

The Court will hear from counsel

Background

On September 30, 2021, Plaintiffs the Estate of Bertram Parie (by and through its Personal Representative, Brenda Henry) and Brenda Henry, individually, filed the complaint in this action against Defendants City of Lancaster (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), Demetrius Lamar Williams (“Williams”), Clinae Nicole Trainor (“Trainor”), and Does 1 through 100, asserting causes of action for (1) Dangerous Condition of Public Property, and (2) Motor Vehicle Negligence, arising out of a fatal collision on September 25, 2020, near the intersection of Avenue J and 17th Street East in Lancaster.

On June 27, 2022, Williams and Trainor filed their answer to the complaint.

On December 15, 2022, City filed its answer and a cross-complaint for indemnity against Williams, Trainor, and Does 1 through 25.

On January 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal, without prejudice, of County.

On February 8, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Notice of the Death of Plaintiff Brenda Henry.  (The Court has since received information that Ms. Henry died approximately eleven months earlier, on March 18, 2022.)  Counsel stated that they were “inquiring as to who the heirs are and whether the heirs want to proceed with this lawsuit.”

On September 26, 2022, Defendant Williams (“Defendant”) propounded Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions on Plaintiff Henry, in her individual capacity, and the same or similar four sets of discovery requests on Plaintiff Henry as representative of the Estate of Bertram Parie. (Miskell Decls., ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff Henry, having died, did not respond.  (The discovery was propounded after her death but before the Notice of Death was filed with the Court.)

On January 12, 2024, Defendant filed the six motions to compel and the two motions for deemed-admitted orders that are currently pending.  For rather obvious reasons, no response was filed.

The motions were set for hearing on February 13 and 15, 2024.  The four motions directed to Plaintiff Henry as personal representative were continued to March 15, 2024.  The four motions directed to Plaintiff Henry in her individual capacity were continued to March 19, 2024.

At the hearing on February 13, the Court, on its own motion, also set for hearing on March 15, 2024, two additional matters: (1) an OSC re Substitution of a Party in Place of Deceased Plaintiff; and (2) an OSC re Why Monetary Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed On Plaintiff’s Counsel for Delay in Prosecution.  The Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to appear (either in person or by remote means) at the hearing.

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 production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; 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., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, “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., § 2031.300, 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. (Id., § 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.”  (Id., § 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 matters contained in the requests for admission].”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Discussion

“The general rule is that, after death of a party, it is improper to render judgment for or against [the party] without first substituting [her] executor or administrator.  Many decisions hold than an order entered after the death of a party to an action is void in the absence of the substitution of the personal representative of such decedent.”  (Kern v. Kern (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 325, 328.)

As a result of Plaintiff’s death, there is no party presently before the Court to oppose the pending motions or continue this litigation.  The Court cannot compel a deceased person to respond to discovery.  And the authority of retained counsel generally does not survive the death of the client.  (Pham v. Wagner Litho Machinery Co. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 966, 972-973.)

The Court will hear from counsel, including whether any person has been identified who is able to make the decision whether to continue (or dismiss) this litigation, both on behalf of the Estate of Bertram Parie and now on behalf of the Estate of Brenda Henry.

Conclusion

The Court will hear from counsel.