Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV19628, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19628    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 24, 2025                      TRIAL DATE: January 13, 2026

CASE:                         Karen LLC v. Dame by Day, et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV19628           

(1)   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2)   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(3)   MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS STATED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AS ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Dame by Day

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Karen, LLC

CASE HISTORY:

·         08/05/24: Complaint filed [unlawful detainer].

·         01/15/25: First Amended Complaint filed [money damages only, possession not at issue].

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of lease. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay rent.

Defendant Dame by Day moves to compel responses to requests for production and form interrogatories, and to deem the truth of matters stated in requests for admissions as admitted. Defendant also seeks sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is MOOT.

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

            Defendant’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions is MOOT.

            Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

            Defendant is to pay $120 in filing fees to the Court within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Dame by Day moves to compel responses to requests for production and form interrogatories, and to deem the truth of matters stated in requests for admissions as admitted.

Multiple Motions

Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§ 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”].) Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect. The Court therefore conditions its ruling on these motions on the payment of an additional $120 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

Procedural Posture

            Defendant originally noticed this omnibus motion to compel responses and to deem the truth of matters stated in requests for admissions. However, in Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion, Plaintiff states that responses were served as of March 11, 2025 to all outstanding discovery. In reply, Defendant agrees that responses have been served and states that only the matter of sanctions remains at issue. The Court will therefore confine its analysis to the propriety of Defendant’s request for sanctions.

Sanctions

            Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $7,340 for failing to provide timely responses. Sanctions pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Discovery Act, commencing with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, are mandatory against a party who fails to respond to interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c); 2031.300 (c) 2033.280(c).) However, as Defendant improperly combined multiple motions into one, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a) [sanctions under Discovery Act not required where imposition would be unjust].) Even if the Court were to overlook this deficiency, Defendant’s request is based on an extraordinary 6.5 hours of attorney time at $350 per hour, 1 hour of attorney time at $500 per hour, seven hours of anticipated attorney time at $500 per hour, and $90 in filing fees. (Declaration of Patrice J. Hensley ISO Mot. ¶¶ 29-32.) This request is unreasonably inflated on its face for a simple motion of this nature, which constitutes an independent basis to deny sanctions. (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 989-991.)

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is MOOT.

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

            Defendant’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions is MOOT.

            Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

            Defendant is to pay $120 in filing fees to the Court within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 24, 2025                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.