Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV44806, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44806    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 26, 2024                 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         J. Lino Zelada v. Charles Magdeseian, individually and as trustee of the Charles and Catherine Magdesian Living Trust U/D/T Dated October 19, 1991

CASE NO.:                 21STCV44806           

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant/Cross-Complainant Charles Magdeseian, individually and as trustee of the Charles and Catherine Magdesian Living Trust U/D/T Dated October 19, 1991

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff J. Lino Zelada

CASE HISTORY:

·         12/08/21: Complaint filed.

·         05/05/23: Cross-Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to perform his obligations concerning the disposition of a parcel of real property and the distribution of funds from the sale of that property.

Defendant moves to compel responses to form interrogatories, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED AS MOOT.

            Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

//

DISCUSSION:

Defendant moves to compel responses to form interrogatories, and for sanctions.

Insufficient Notice

            Defendant served this motion via electronic service on January 31, 2024. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) requires that a motion be served 16 court days before the date of the scheduled hearing, plus two court days for electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1005(b); 1010.6.) Thus, accounting for two Court holidays on February 19 and February 12, the last day to serve this motion was January 29, 2024. However, as Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a declaration in opposition to this motion without objecting to the deficient notice, the Court will address the motion on its merits.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom an inspection demand or an interrogatory is directed fails to respond, a party making the request may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories]; 2031.300(b) [requests for production].) A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that discovery requests were properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

            Defendant served form interrogatories via email on Plaintiff’s counsel on September 21, 2023. (Declaration of Michael Lacerte ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. 1 POS.) As of the date of filing of this motion, no responses have been received. (Id. ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that responses were served by mail on February 9, 2024, and included a copy of those responses with proof of service. (Declaration of John Guy ISO Opp. Exh. A.) Thus, it appears that this motion is moot save for the issue of sanctions.

Sanctions

            Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff only in the amount of $2,614.50. This request is based on 4 hours of attorney time actually incurred at the rate of $375 per hour, plus 2 anticipated hours at the same rate, plus $60 in filing fees. (Declaration of Robert Petrokofsky ISO Mot. ¶ 4.) This fee request is unreasonably inflated on its face. It should not take four hours for an attorney with more than three decades of experience to prepare a straightforward motion to compel responses. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to deny this request as unreasonably inflated. (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 989-991.)

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is DENIED AS MOOT.

            Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 26, 2024                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.