Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00330, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00330 Hearing Date: March 30, 2023 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST
DISTRICT
On June 3, 2022, Primerica
Life Insurance Company (“Primerica”) filed this complaint-in-interpleader
against Perla Ragos Joyce (“Perla”) and Latoya Joyce (“Latoya”) arising from
the payment of a $50,000 death benefit pursuant to a life insurance policy
purchased by Jimmie Ishan Joyce (the “Insured”). (Compl., ¶ 7.) The Insured purchased a life insurance policy
from Primerica on or about July 17, 2012.
(Compl., ¶ 7.) The policy
originally designated Latoya as the sole beneficiary. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Primerica alleges that on or about January
31, 2013, the Insured submitted to Primerica a multipurpose change form (“MCF”)
naming Perla as the sole beneficiary. (Compl.,
¶ 8.) The Insured passed away on
November 18, 2020. Latoya and Perla have
made competing and adverse claims for the death benefit.
Perla filed an answer and
cross-complaint (incorrectly combined and styled as an “Answer and
Counterclaims”) against Primerica on July 20, 2022. The Court’s order for deposit of interpleader
funds was entered on August 2, 2022. Although
a notice and acknowledgment of receipt was filed on October 31, 2022, Latoya
has not yet appeared in the action.
On December 27, 2022, Perla
filed these three discovery motions after Latoya failed to provide any
responses to Perla’s Requests for Admission (Set One), Corrected Request for
Production of Documents (Set One) and Corrected Special Interrogatories (Set
One). The document requests and
interrogatories were served on November 8, 2022, and the requests for admission
were served on November 11, 2022. Perla
does not request sanctions.
Requests
for Admission (Set One)
Perla’s motion is brought pursuant to
CCP 2033.290, which only applies once a party has received a response to
requests for admission and authorizes a party to move for an order compelling a
“further response.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.290, subd. (a).) Where no responses
are served, the 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, as well as for a monetary sanction.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, (b).)
Accordingly, Perla’s requested relief
is not available and the motion to compel a response is DENIED.
Corrected Request for Production of
Documents (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One)
Where a party fails to serve timely
responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling
responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses
waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the
protection of attorney work product.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Latoya did not oppose these two motions
and it is undisputed that Latoya failed to serve timely responses to Perla’s
discovery requests. Accordingly, Perla’s
motions are GRANTED and Latoya is ordered to serve, within 20 days, verified
responses without objections to Corrected Request for Production of Documents
(Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One).
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this
tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating
intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided
on the court 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.
Dated
this
|
|
|
William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court |