Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2019-01117721 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2019-01117721, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (Motion), filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 87, is DENIED as MOOT, but GRANTED as to a monetary sanction.

Plaintiff’s (Marco Saldana) Opposition to Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (Opposition), filed on 9-28-22 under ROA No. 155, states, “Plaintiff has served full and verified responses, without objection, to all of NEGRETE’s Request for Admissions, Set One, as Plaintiff’s counsel has long since promised to do. At no time did Plaintiff attempt to avoid providing such verified responses, although it regrettably did take some time for Plaintiff’s counsel to receive necessary responsive information and complete said response, they have indeed been provided.” (Motion; 2:5-9 (Olsen Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit 2.).) Plaintiff served these responses on 9-24-22. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit 2.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), states, “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Deem Facts Admitted, filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 87, as MOOT. The court, however, GRANTS the Motion as to a monetary sanction against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant in the amount of $420.00. (Odell Decl., ¶ 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Defendant is to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One (Motion), filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 91, is DENIED as MOOT, but GRANTED as to a monetary sanction.

Plaintiff’s (Marco Saldana) Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Opposition), filed on 9-28-22 under ROA No. 161, states, “Plaintiff has served a full and verified response to all of NEGRETE’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, as Plaintiff’s counsel has long since promised to do. At no time did Plaintiff attempt to avoid providing such verified responses, although it regrettably did take some time for Plaintiff’s counsel to receive necessary responsive information and complete said response, they have indeed been provided.” (Motion; 2:9-13 (Olsen Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 3.).) Plaintiff served these responses on 9-24-22. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 3.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), states, “(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”

Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 91, as MOOT. The court, however, GRANTS the Motion as to a monetary sanction against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant in the amount of $240.00. (Odell Decl., ¶ 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Defendant is to give notice.

Motion No. 3:

Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One (Motion), filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 95, is DENIED as MOOT, but GRANTED as to a monetary sanction.

Plaintiff’s (Marco Saldana) Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (Opposition), filed on 9-28-22 under ROA No. 153, states, “Plaintiff has served a full and verified response to all of NEGRETE’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, as Plaintiff’s counsel has long since promised to do. At no time did Plaintiff attempt to avoid providing such verified responses, although it regrettably did take some time for Plaintiff’s counsel to receive necessary responsive information and complete said response, they have indeed been provided.” (Motion; 2:8-12 (Olsen Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 3.).) Plaintiff served these responses on 9-24-22. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 3.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), states, “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”

Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 95, as MOOT. The court, however, GRANTS the Motion as to a monetary sanction against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant in the amount of $240.00. (Odell Decl., ¶ 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Defendant is to give notice.

Motion No. 4:

Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two (Motion), filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 103, is DENIED as MOOT, but GRANTED as to a monetary sanction.

Plaintiff’s (Marco Saldana) Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (Opposition), filed on 9-28-22 under ROA No. 157, states, “Plaintiff has served a full and verified response to all of NEGRETE’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, as Plaintiff’s counsel has long since promised to do. At no time did Plaintiff attempt to avoid providing such verified responses, although it regrettably did take some time for Plaintiff’s counsel to receive necessary responsive information and complete said response, they have indeed been provided.” (Motion; 2:6-10 (Olsen Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit 2.).) Plaintiff served these responses on 9-24-22. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit 2.)

Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 103, as MOOT. The court, however, GRANTS the Motion as to a monetary sanction against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant in the amount of $240.00. (Odell Decl., ¶ 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Defendant is to give notice.

Motion No. 5:

Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One (Motion), filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 107, is DENIED as MOOT, but GRANTED as to a monetary sanction.

Plaintiff’s (Marco Saldana) Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (Opposition), filed on 9-28-22 under ROA No. 159, states, “Plaintiff has served a full and verified response to all of NEGRETE’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, as Plaintiff’s counsel has long since promised to do. At no time did Plaintiff attempt to avoid providing such verified responses, although it regrettably did take some time for Plaintiff’s counsel to receive necessary responsive information and complete said response, they have indeed been provided.” (Motion; 2:8-12 (Olsen Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 3.).) Plaintiff served these responses on 9-24-22. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 3.)

Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant’s (Abel Isai Atondo Negrete) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 107, as MOOT. The court, however, GRANTS the Motion as to a monetary sanction against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant in the amount of $240.00. (Odell Decl., ¶ 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348.)

Defendant is to give notice.

Motion No. 6:

Plaintiff’s (Marco Saldana) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (Motion), filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 99, is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff directs this Motion against Defendant (Napoleon Express, Ltd.). On 6-21-22, the court SUSTAINED Defendant’s Demurrer without leave to amend. Defendant is no longer an active party in this action. Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Marco Saldana) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, filed on 5-18-22 under ROA No. 99, as MOOT.

Plaintiff is to give notice.