Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV03333, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03333    Hearing Date: October 28, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     October 28, 2024                   TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Miguel Angel Torres Alvarez, et al. v. Bennettis Italia, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV03333           

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES (x14) SANCTIONS ONLY

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Miguel Angel Torres Alvarez & Nelly Torres

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Bennettis Italia, Inc. Sara Ahmadinia, & Mohammad Ahmadinia (14 motions total)

CASE HISTORY:

·         02/15/23: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination and wage and hour action brought by a husband and wife against their former employers. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants consistently underpaid them, failed to provide accommodations for injuries and disabilities, and constructively terminated Plaintiffs.  

Plaintiffs brought fourteen motions to compel initial responses to various sets of discovery, including form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production propounded to each Defendant, and for sanctions. At a September 12, 2024 Informal Discovery Conference, the Court determined that the motions were moot except for the issue of sanctions and ordered the parties to submit a joint statement on the amount of sanctions to be awarded. The parties submitted their joint statement on September 30, 2024, and so the Court now rules on the amount of sanctions to be imposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff Miguel Alvarez moved to compel Bennettis Italia, Inc. to respond to form interrogatories, to compel Defendant Mohammad Ahmadinia to respond to special interrogatories and requests for production, and to compel Defendant Sara Ahmadinia to respond to form interrogatories and requests for production. Plaintiff Alvarez also sought sanctions against each Defendant and their counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,411.65 on the one motion to the corporate Defendant, and $736.65 on each of the two motions brought against each of the individual Defendants. Plaintiff Nelly Torres moved to compel each Defendant to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production, and sought sanctions against each Defendant and counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $736.65 on each of her nine motions. Following the parties’ meet and confer efforts, Plaintiffs request sanctions in the flat amount of $7,000 in attorney’s fees plus $863.10 in costs. (Joint Statement p.6.)

            Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”

            Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories or requests for production against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c); 2030.300(d); 2031.300 (c); 2031.310(h).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Id.)

            Here, Plaintiffs are requesting $7,000 in attorney’s fees plus $863.10 in costs. As originally noticed, Plaintiff Alvarez sought $1,411.65 in sanctions against Defendant Bennettis Italia, Inc., reflecting two hours of attorney time at $650 per hour, plus $61.50 in filing fees. (Joint Statement p.5:13-14.) For each of the remaining motions, Plaintiffs sought only $736.65 on each motion, reflecting the same filing fee but only one hour of attorney time at the same rate of $650. (Joint Statement p. 5:15-16). Thus, Plaintiff Alvarez sought $1,350 in attorney’s fees against each Defendant, reflecting 2 hours on one motion and one hour on each of two motions against the individuals, plus $61.65 in filing fees against the corporate Defendant and $123.30 against each individual Defendant. Plaintiff Torres, in bringing three motions against each Defendant seeking $736.65 in sanctions on each motion, sought a total of $1,950 in fees plus $184.95 in costs against each Defendant. In lieu of that initial request, Plaintiffs seek a flat award of $7,000 in fees plus the filing costs, reflecting approximately 70% of the total fees sought.

            Defendants freely concede in their joint statement that sanctions are proper in this circumstance and do not object to a full award of the filing costs for each of the fourteen motions. (Joint Statement p. 7:7-9.) Defendants object, however, to the amount of attorney’s fees sought on the basis that both the claimed rate and hours incurred are excessive, relying on Defendants’ counsel’s $300 rate as justification for their position. Even if defense counsel’s rate and assertions regarding the reasonable time to prepare these motions were appropriate evidence—and they are not—Defendants’ argument is of little force here, as Plaintiffs have preemptively requested reduced sanctions. That said, the Court cannot simply award a flat $7,000 in sanctions because each Plaintiff noticed several discovery motions and sanction requests against different parties, and to impose a flat sanction would violate Defendants’ individual due process rights. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.040.) Instead, the Court will apply a 30% reduction to the fees sought by each Plaintiff against each Defendant so as to properly apportion the sanction award.

            Applying a 30% reduction to the fees only, the Court determines that the appropriate fee awards are $945 each to Plaintiff Alvarez on his one motion against the corporate Defendant and two motions against each individual Defendant and $1,365 to Plaintiff Torres on each set of three motions pertaining to each of the three Defendants. The final total for each award, including costs, is therefore: (1) $1,006.65 to Plaintiff Alvarez from the corporate Defendant and counsel, jointly and severally; (2) $1,068.30 to Plaintiff Alvarez from each individual Defendant and counsel, jointly and severally; and (3) $1,534.95 to Plaintiff Torres from each of the three Defendants and counsel, jointly and severally.

            Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are GRANTED as follows:

            Plaintiff Alvarez is awarded $1,006.65 in sanctions against Defendant Bennettis Italia, Inc., and its counsel Bruce Benjamin, jointly and severally.

            Plaintiff Alvarez is awarded $1,068.30 in sanctions against Defendant Mohammad Ahmadinia, and counsel Bruce Benjamin, jointly and severally.

            Plaintiff Alvarez is awarded $1,068.30 in sanctions against Defendant Sara Ahmadinia, and counsel Bruce Benjamin, jointly and severally.

            Plaintiff Torres is awarded $1,534.95 in sanctions against Defendant Bennettis Italia, Inc., and its counsel Bruce Benjamin, jointly and severally.

            Plaintiff Torres is awarded $1,534.95 in sanctions against Defendant Mohammad Ahmadinia, and counsel Bruce Benjamin, jointly and severally.

            Plaintiff Torres is awarded $1,534.95 in sanctions against Defendant Sara Ahmadinia, and counsel Bruce Benjamin, jointly and severally.

            All sanctions are to be paid by each set of responsible parties to counsel for Plaintiffs within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

//

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  October 28, 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.