Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV23139, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV23139 Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 Dept: 29
Mizrahi v.
Carmel Towing & Transport, Inc.
23STCV23139
Motion to Compel Defendant Carmel Towing & Transport, Inc. to Respond to Form
Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Defendant Carmel Towing & Transport, Inc. to Respond to Special
Interrogatories (Set One)
Motion to Compel Defendant Carmel Towing & Transport, Inc. to Respond to Requests
for Production (Set One)
Motion for Order Deeming Defendant Carmel Towing & Transport, Inc. to Have
Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)
Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motions are granted.
Background
On
September 25, 2023, Amnon Mizrahi and Susan Mizrahi (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
filed a complaint against Carmel Towing & Transport, Inc. (“Carmel”),
Bert’s Garage, Inc. (“Bert’s”), Automobile Club of Southern California (“AAA”),
and Does 1 through 25, asserting causes of action for premises liability,
negligence, vicarious liability, and loss of consortium arising out of an
incident on November 10, 2021, in which, Plaintiffs allege, Plaintiffs’ car rolled
off of a flatbed truck and injured Plaintiff Amnon Mizrahi.
On
October 17, 2023, AAA filed an answer.
On
April 4, 2024, Bert’s filed an answer.
On
June 27, 2024, Carmel filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Bert’s and
Roes 1 through 25.
On
September 9, 2024, Bert’s filed an answer to Carmel’s cross-complaint.
On
December 5, 2024, Bert’s filed a motion seeking summary judgment on Plaintiffs’
complaint and Carmel’s cross-complaint. That
motion is set for hearing on July 9, 2025.
On
January 22, 2025, Bert’s filed these five motions: (1) Motion to Compel Carmel Towing to Respond to Form
Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Motion to Compel Carmel. to Respond to Special
Interrogatories (Set One); (3) Motion to Compel Carmel. to Respond to Requests
for Production (Set One); (4) Motion for Order Deeming Carmel to Have Admitted
the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One); and (5)
Motion to Continue Trial. In each of the
four discovery motions, Bert’s also seeks monetary sanctions.
On
February 13, 2025, Carmel filed untimely oppositions to the four discovery
motions.
No
opposition has been filed to the motion to continue trial.
No
reply has been filed.
Legal Standard
Motion to Continue
Code of Civil Procedure section 128,
subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control
its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The
power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the
discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44
Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of
calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park
Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil
cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm.
All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as
certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(a).)
“Although continuances of trials are
disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own
merits.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a
continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the
continuance.” (Ibid.) Circumstances that may support a finding of
good cause include:
“(1) The
unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness,
or other excusable circumstances;
(2) The
unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
(3) The
unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
(4) The
substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing
that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;
(5) The addition
of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to
conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had
a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard
to the new party's involvement in the case;
(6) A party's
excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material
evidence despite diligent efforts; or
(7) A
significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of
which the case is not ready for trial.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)
“In ruling on a motion or application for
continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are
relevant to the determination.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that
the court may consider:
“(1) The
proximity of the trial date;
(2) Whether
there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to
any party;
(3) The length
of the continuance requested;
(4) The
availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the
motion or application for a continuance;
(5) The
prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;
(6) If the case
is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and
whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
(7) The court's
calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;
(8) Whether
trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
(9) Whether all
parties have stipulated to a continuance;
(10) Whether the
interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the
matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
(11) Any other
fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or
application.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment
motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior
Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)
Discovery Motions
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.” (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., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)
Unverified discovery responses “are
tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988)
206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)
Discussion
Motion to Continue
Bert’s seeks to
continue trial so that its motion for summary judgment, set for hearing on July
9, 2025, can be heard before trial.
A party has a
right to have its timely filed motion for summary judgment heard before
trial. (Cole v. Superior Court
(2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989)
207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529.) Bert’s timely
filed and served its motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, the motion to continue
trial is granted.
Discovery Motions
As a threshold matter, the Court
exercises its discretion to consider Carmel’s untimely oppositions to the four
discovery motions.
On October 9, 2024, Bert’s served Carmel
with Form Interrogatories (Set One); Special Interrogatories (Set One);
Requests for Production (Set One); and Requests for Admission (Set One). (Jeong
Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) As of the
time of the filing of the four motions, Carmel had not served responses. (Id., ¶ 6.)
In its untimely Opposition, Carmel concedes
that it has not responded to the discovery requests but promises that responses
will be served before the hearing. (Kim Decls., ¶ 8.)
Bert’s has propounded discovery and
Carmel has failed to respond. Bert’s need
show nothing more.
Bert’s motions to compel Carmel to
respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production
are granted.
Absent proof that Carmel served
responses to the requests for admission prior to the hearing (and the Court has
received none), the motion for a deemed-admitted order is granted.
The Court also grants in part the
requests for sanctions on each motion.
Given the relatively straightforward nature of these motions, and the
economies of scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, the
Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $760, calculated based on
two hours of attorney work for each motion, multiplied by a reasonable billing
rate of $350 per hour for work of this nature, plus a $60 filing fee for each
motion. (See Jeong Decls., ¶ 7.)
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial
filed by Bert’s Garage, Inc.
The Court
CONTINUES trial to a date on or after September 16, 2025.
The Court GRANTS
the motions to compel responses to written discovery.
The Court ORDERS Defendant Carmel
Towing & Transport, Inc. dba Pro Auto Shop to provide written, verified,
code-compliant responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
propounded by Bert’s within 10 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Defendant Carmel
Towing & Transport, Inc. dba Pro Auto Shop to provide written, verified,
code-compliant responses, without objection, to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
propounded by Bert’s within 10 days of notice.
The Court ORDERS Defendant Carmel
Towing & Transport, Inc. dba Pro Auto Shop to provide written, verified,
code-compliant responses, without objection, to Requests for Production (Set One)
propounded by Bert’s within 10 days of notice.
The Court GRANTS the motion for a
deemed-admitted order.
The Court ORDERS that Defendant
Carmel Towing & Transport, Inc. dba Pro Auto Shop is DEEMED TO HAVE
ADMITTED the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)
propounded by Bert’s.
The Court GRANTS in part the requests
for sanctions.
The Court ORDERS Defendant Carmel
Towing & Transport, Inc. dba Pro Auto Shop and its counsel of record, Dean
A. Olson, Esq. and Lauren K. Kim, Esq. of Clark Hill LLP, jointly and
severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Bert’s
Garage, Inc. (through counsel) in the total amount of $3,040 ($760 per motion
multiplied by four motions) within 30 days of notice.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.