Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

MARTIN DORSLA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SALLY FOSTER JONES, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

23STCV22254

Hearing Date

March 28, 2025

Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MARTIN DORSLA TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS JOE HUEZO; and HUEZO CONSTRUCTION’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,725 AGAINST PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MARTIN DORSLA TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS JOE HUEZO; AND HUEZO CONSTRUCTION’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1725 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff Martin Dorsla (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against multiple defendants, including Joe Huezo and Huezo Construction (jointly, “Defendants”). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 31, 2023. Defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike the First Amended Complaint, which was granted in part on April 26, 2024. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 29, 2024, which was stricken on October 16, 2024.

On January 7, 2025, an Informal Discovery Conference was held in this matter. The Court’s January 7, 2025, minute order provides, inter alia, that “[t]he parties attended the Informal Discovery Conference. The parties agreed and the Court ordered as follows: . . .2. On or before January 15, 2025, Plaintiff will eserve Defendants with his verified responses to the special interrogatories and requests for production propounded by Defendants Huezo and Huezo Construction.” (Emphasis added.)

Defendants now move for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One and to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. However, there is no need for another order compelling Plaintiff to serve the discovery previously ordered. That order remains in force. Defendants’ remedy for failing to obey a court order is a motions to impose sanctions.

It appears that Defendants previously filed two “Requests for Sanctions” without noticed motions. That “Request” was rejected on February 20, 2025. The remedy for that rejection was noticed motions for sanctions not motions to compel. Defendants’ motions to compel are denied because no additional orders are required. The denial of these motions is without prejudice to noticed motions for sanctions.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: March 28, 2025 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court