Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00049, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00049    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: R

(1)   Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Rafael Oceguera to Provide Responses to Request for Production and Produce Documents

(2)   Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions to Be Admitted

(3)   Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Responding Party: Defendant

Tentative Ruling

(1)   Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Rafael Oceguera to Provide Responses to Request for Production and Produce Documents is DENIED.

(2)   Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions to Be Admitted is DENIED.

(3)   Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Background

Plaintiffs Granvista Inc. and Alvaro Garcia (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege the following against Defendant Rafael Oceguera (“Defendant”): Defendant was an employer of Plaintiff Granvista from 2018 to 2021 where he worked as a Director of Operations. On November 30, 2021, Defendant’s employment was terminated. Plaintiff learned that Defendant was using the company computer and cellphone for his personal affairs. After his termination, Defendant turned over the computer and cellphone, but had wiped the hard drive clean. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has stored company information on a different device. In addition to the employment issue, Plaintiff sold Defendant a vehicle wherein Defendant was to register the vehicle in Defendant’s name, but Defendant left it in the name of Plaintiff Garcia. Defendant later ran a red light and Plaintiff Garcia is informed and believes that Defendant represented to the court that either the vehicle was being driven by Plaintiff Garcia or an unknown individual even though Defendant was responsible for the infraction.

 On January 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for:

1.      Breach of Contract,

2.      Conversion,

3.      Misappropriation of Name,

4.      Equitable Indemnity, and

5.      Breach of Contract

On March 1, 2022, Defendant filed a Demurrer with a Motion to Strike.

On March 17, 2022, the court ‘Voided’ Defendant’s Demurrer pursuant to Government Code section 68634(g) because “the request to waive court fees having been denied on 03/01/2022 and the party having failed to make the payment or file a request for hearing about court fee waiver order within 10 days . . . .”

On March 28, 2022, the court clerk entered default against Defendant.

On April 4, 2022, Defendant re-filed his Demurrer with a Motion to Strike.

On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant 3 motions.

On May 18, 2022, Defendant filed oppositions to the discovery motions.

On May 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Reply to the discovery motions.

On May 25, 2022, the court ordered the parties to stipulate to set aside default.

On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to the Demurrer. 

Discussion

I.                   Discovery Motions

Plaintiff concedes that while responses have been received, it is still entitled to monetary sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant because “Defendant never served any responses until they were attached to the opposition to the motion.” (Reply p. 2.)

Not so. A review of Defendant’s proof of service indicates that he mailed the responses to all the discovery requests on April 4, 2022, the day they were due. Thus, even if Plaintiff did not receive the discovery responses until May 17, 2022, Plaintiff fails to acknowledge that the responses were timely sent.

Therefore, the court DENIES the request for monetary sanctions.

II.                Demurrer

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s entire Complaint.

Here, the demurrer is nothing more than a recitation of the authority for a demurrer. There is no analysis. It is not the court’s duty to create a party’s arguments.[1]

Therefore, the demurrer is OVERRULED.