Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00456, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.




Case Number: 22PSCV00456    Hearing Date: April 7, 2023    Dept: O

Hearing Date:                         Friday, April 7, 2023

RE:                                          GABRIELA CABRERA vs BOST LAND, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (22PSCV00456)

________________________________________________________________________

(1)   PLAINTIFF GABRIELA CABRERA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM ALL REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(2)   PLAINTIFF GABRIELA CABRERA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

(3)   PLAINTIFF GABRIELA CABRERA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(4)   PLAINTIFF GABRIELA CABRERA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Responding Party: Unopposed as of Wed. 3-29 at 8AM (due Fri. 3-24)[1]

Tentative Ruling

(1)   PLAINTIFF GABRIELA CABRERA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM ALL REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS is GRANTED.

(2)   PLAINTIFF GABRIELA CABRERA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS is GRANTED.

(3)   PLAINTIFF GABRIELA CABRERA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS is GRANTED.

(4)   PLAINTIFF GABRIELA CABRERA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS is GRANTED.

Monetary sanctions are imposed on Defendant and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced, total amount of $1,000.

Background

This is an ADA case.

On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed her suit against Defendant Bost Land LLC.

On July 25, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer.

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant four (4) motions.[2]

Discussion

On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff propounded all four discovery requests upon Defendant. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defense Counsel informing that discovery responses had not been received.[3] To date, no responses have been received.

Therefore, as responses have not been received, the court orders Defendant to provide the responses.

As for monetary sanctions, counsel seeks imposition of monetary sanctions of $800 per motion ($400 hourly rate at two hours/motion). Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances,[4] the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,000 [1 hour/motion at $250/hour]. Sanctions are payable within 20 days of the date of the hearing.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motions are granted, and monetary sanctions are imposed in the reduced, total amount of $1,000 (i.e., not $1,000 per motion but $1,000 for all four motions).

 

 



[1]           Based on the attorney information found in the answer, Defense Counsel’s email is pstillman@stillmanassociates.com. And according to Ex. B attached to each motion, the meet and confer letter was sent to the same email. Lastly, the proof of service indicates that Defense Counsel was served via mail and electronic mail at the addresses provided in the Answer. Therefore, Plaintiff has provided adequate notice of the hearings to Defendant. 

[2] The court consolidated the hearings on the motion.

 

[3] The declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel provides the email. It is unclear whether Defense Counsel responded to the email because the motions merely state that no responses have been received.

 

[4] Circumstances are that the motions are short, does not contain a legal analysis, are identical in substance, aside from the statutory authority per discovery type.