Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 19STCV36240, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36240    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: L

Background   

Plaintiff Jorge Chavez Soto (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On August 7, 2018, Plaintiff was employed as a construction worker performing work on a roof of a building under construction. While working on the roof, Plaintiff fell approximately 20-30 feet below when he stepped through an unsecured hole and sustained injuries.

On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants C&L Refrigeration Corporation (“C&L”), Angle Ironworks, Inc. (“Angle”) and Does 1-50 for:

1.      Negligence

2.      Premises Liability

On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein GB Metal Fabricators, Inc. (“GB Metals”) was named in lieu of Doe 1.

On March 11, 2020, GB Metals filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against C&L, Angle and Moes 1-50 for:

1.      Equitable Indemnification and Contribution

2.      Declaratory Relief

3.      Apportionment of Fault

On March 12, 2020, Angle filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against GB Metal and Roes 1-10 for:

1.      Express Written Indemnity

2.      Full or Partial Equitable Indemnification

3.      Declaratory Relief

4.      Indemnity

On April 2, 2020, C&L filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Roes 1-50 for:

1.      Express Indemnity

2.      Implied Indemnity

3.      Comparative Indemnity

4.      Declaratory Relief

On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein KPRS Construction Services, Inc. (“KPRS”) was named in lieu of Doe 2.

On March 3, 2021, this case was transferred from Department 27 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department.

On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed C&L, without prejudice.

On March 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein C&L was named in lieu of Doe 3.

On November 22, 2022, an “Order Granting Defendant KPRS Construction Services Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment” was filed. On November 23, 2022, KPRS filed (and electronically served) a “Notice of Entry of Order Granting Defendant KPRS Construction Services, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

The Final Status Conference is set for September 12, 2023. Trial is set for September 26, 2023.

1. Motion to Compel Form and Special Interrogatories and Document Production

Legal Standard

Interrogatories

A response to interrogatories is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.

(a).) “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, . . . [t]he

party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the

interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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 . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Document Production

A response to a request for production of documents is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom a request for production of documents is

directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party making the demand may move for an

order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who

unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a motion to compel, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Discussion

C&L moves the court for an order compelling GB Metals to serve full and complete verified answers, without objections, to C&L’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Request for Document Production, Sets No. One.

Filing Fees

At the outset, the court notes that C&L’s motion improperly combines three separate motions to compel into one. Plaintiff has only paid one filing fee and reserved a hearing for one motion. This is improper. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional $120.00 in filing fees at or before the time of the hearing (i.e., $60.00 filing fee/motion, multiplied by 3, minus 1 filing fee already paid). Counsel for C&L is admonished to adhere to court filing and reservation guidelines in any future filings and to file (and pay for) separate motions for each discovery vehicle at issue in the future. Failure to do so may result in the motions being placed off calendar, in the court’s discretion.

Merits

C&L’s counsel Michael J. Larin (“Larin”) represents as follows: C&L served the subject discovery on June 2, 2020. (Larin Decl., ¶¶ 7-9, Exhs. A-C.) C&L has not received any responses from GB Metals, as of the January 12, 2023 date of Larin’s declaration. (Id., ¶ 11.)

On March 22, 2023, the court received an untimely opposition to this Motion. Attached to the untimely opposition are responses to the propounded discovery at issue here. The court GRANTS these motions and orders responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, Special Interrogatories, Set 1, and Request for Document Production, Set 1 propounded on June 2, 2020, within 20 days of this Order, although the court recognizes that GB Metals may now have complied with these requests.

As C&L’s motion(s) sought no sanctions, the court has no basis upon which to calculate an amount of sanctions.

2. Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

Legal Standard

A response to requests for admission is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §

2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a

timely response, . . .[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any

documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. . .” (Code

Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) “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. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both,

whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Discussion

C&L moves the court for an order that all facts set forth in C&L’s Requests for Admissions, Set No. One, propounded on GB Metals be deemed admitted.

See discussion on Motion #1.

On March 22, 2023, the court received an untimely opposition to this Motion. Attached to the untimely opposition are responses without objections to the requests for admissions at issue here. Under these circumstances and given the special nature of requests for admissions, the court lacks jurisdiction to do anything except to deny this motion. The court declines to issue sanctions because C&L was substantially justified in bringing the motion.

.