Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV39922, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39922    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On October 29, 2021, Humberto Abram Altamirano and Nicole Bonacio (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Jose De Jesus Aguayo Villalobos (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10.  Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence.

On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Vahe Hovanessian of Law Office of Vahe Hovanessian, was relieved as Plaintiff’s counsel.  Plaintiffs presently proceed in pro per.

On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed the following: (1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano to Answer Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions; (2) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Nicole Bonacio to Answer Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions; (3) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano to Answer Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions; (4) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Nicole Bonacio to Answer Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions; and (5) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano to Respond to Demand for Production, Set One and Request for Sanctions.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          When a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the requesting party may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  A party that fails to respond to interrogatories “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260, a responding party must serve responses to a propounding party’s interrogatories within thirty (30) days of service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)

          The Court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 “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).)

          When a party fails to timely respond to a document inspection demand, “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”   (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) When a party fails to respond to document production request, the party “directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.260, a responding party must serve responses to a propounding party’s request for document production within thirty (30) days of service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)

          “[T]he 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd.(c).)

III.      DISCUSSION

          Defendant moves for an Order compelling Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano’s (“Plaintiff Altamirano”) and Plaintiff Nicole Bonacio’s (“Plaintiff Bonacio”) responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One.  Defendant, additionally, moves for an Order compelling Plaintiff Altamirano’s response to Defendant’s Demand for Production, Set One.  In conjunction with the above requests, Defendant moves for an Order issuing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Altamirano in a total amount of approximately $2,280.00, and against Plaintiff Bonacio in a total amount of approximately $1,520.00.

          Following review of Defendant’s collective moving papers, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an Order compelling Plaintiff Altamirano’s and Plaintiff Bonacio’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, as well as Plaintiff Altamirano’s responses to Defendant’s Demand for Production, Set One.  Defendant demonstrates that, on approximately December 14, 2021, Plaintiff was served with the above-referenced written discovery by and through electronic delivery upon Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Vahe Hovanessian of Law Office of Vahe Hovanessian.  (Kang Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.)  Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs were statutorily required to serve responses to Defendant’s written discovery no later than January 17, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B) [“Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days”].)  Defendant demonstrated Plaintiffs, collectively, failed to serve responses to Defendant’s written discovery by the statutory deadline.  (Kang Decl., ¶ 10.) 

          Additionally, Defendant demonstrates that, despite providing Plaintiffs with multiple extensions to respond, with the most recent extension provided by a letter mailed to Plaintiffs’ residential address, Plaintiffs have failed to provide a response to Defendant’s written discovery.  (Kang Decl., ¶¶ 3-4 [extension of time provided by the request of Plaintiffs’ former counsel of record], 6-8 [extension of time provided by written letter mailed to Plaintiffs’ residence, following Plaintiffs’ counsel’s withdrawal].)  Accordingly, as Plaintiffs have failed to proffer a timely response, Defendant is entitled to an Order compelling Plaintiff Altamirano’s and Plaintiff Bonacio’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, as well as Plaintiff Altamirano’s responses to Defendant’s Demand for Production, Set One.

          Further, the Court finds the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs is just and warranted, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2030.300, subd. (c).)  Plaintiffs have failed to file an Opposition to Defendant’s various Motions for the purposes of demonstrating that Plaintiffs’ failure to respond was due to substantial justification.  Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an Order issuing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Altamirano in a total amount of $880.00 ($175.00 billing rate multiplied by three hours to prepare three Motions and one hour to appear for hearing, plus $180 representing filing fee for three Motions), and against Plaintiff Bonacio in a total amount of $645.00 ($175.00 billing rate multiplied by two hours to prepare two Motions and one hour to appear for hearing, plus $120 representing filing fee for two Motions).  (Kang Decl., ¶ 11.)

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano to Answer Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano is ordered to serve responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within thirty (30) days of this Court’s Order.

          Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Nicole Bonacio to Answer Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Nicole Bonacio is ordered to serve responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within thirty (30) days of this Court’s Order.

          Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano to Answer Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano is ordered to serve responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One within thirty (30) days of this Court’s Order.

          Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Nicole Bonacio to Answer Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Nicole Bonacio is ordered to serve responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One within thirty (30) days of this Court’s Order.

          Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano to Respond to Demand for Production, Set One and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Humberto Abram Altamirano is ordered to serve responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Demand for Production, Set One within thirty (30) days of this Court’s Order.

Plaintiff Humberto Abram is ordered to pay monetary sanctions equal to $880.00 to Defendant within thirty (30) days of this Court’s Order.

Plaintiff Nicol Bonacio is ordered to pay monetary sanctions equal to $645.00 to Defendant within thirty (30) days of this Court’s Order.

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.