Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00813, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 22AHCV00813    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

GERARD W. AU, et al.,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

MILESTONE ENTERPRISES aka MILESTONE ENTERPRISES INC., et al.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  22AHCV00813

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

February 19, 2025

 

)

 

 

          Defendant Milestone Enterprises, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed two motions for orders compelling plaintiffs Gerard Au and Wayne Hegedus (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to serve further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1 through 7. Plaintiffs filed a joint opposition on February 5, 2025. Defendant filed a reply brief on February 10, 2025.

          Plaintiffs oppose the motions on the grounds that Defendant’s definitions for the words “YOU,” “YOUR,” and “YOURS” are overbroad and render the requests for admission too confusing. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 requires that a party responding to a request for admission provide an answer that

(1)    Admit[s] so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

 

(2)    Den[ies] so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

 

(3)     Specif[ies] so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

 

 

The definitions of the terms, “YOU,” “YOUR,” and “YOURS”, as used in each set of discovery, are not included in the separate statement but refer to the responding plaintiff and “anyone or any entity acting on [their] behalf.” These definitions do not render the requests so unintelligible as to be unanswerable. To the extent there is any ambiguity, Plaintiffs may easily address those ambiguities by specifying the extent to which each RFA is admitted/denied.

          Defendants’ motions are GRANTED and Plaintiffs are ordered to serve further responses within 20 days of the date of this order. Additionally, each plaintiff, along with their counsel of record, jointly and severally, shall pay $960 in monetary sanctions, consisting of 3 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $300 and a filing fee of $60, within 20 days.

Dated this 19th day of February 2025

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

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.