Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00221, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00221    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On January 13, 2023, plaintiff Yvette Correll (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Helen Ross  (“Ross”) and Lotusan LLC (“Lotusan”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) breach of implied warranty of quiet enjoyment, (4) negligence, (5) nuisance, (6) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (7) constructive eviction, and (8) failure to return deposit.

On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and Request for Admissions (Set One) on Defendants. Despite being given two 3-week extensions, Defendants did not serve discovery responses by the agreed-upon due date of January 3, 2024. (Aziz Decl., ¶ 4.) On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with defense counsel regarding the status of the discovery responses but defense counsel did not respond. Therefore, Plaintiff filed these motions on February 1, 2024.

          Compel Responses

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).)

Defendants admit that responses have not been served. Nevertheless, Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motions on the grounds that Ross is 80-years old and in poor health. Defendants also state that the motions should be denied because it is possible that the insurance company will be taking over the defense of the case soon. These are unpersuasive arguments because the discovery requests were served almost 6 months ago and the action has been pending for over a year. Furthermore, even if Ross is in poor health (an assertion for which Defendants fail to provide any admissible evidence, such as a sworn declaration from Ross herself), there is no explanation for why the corporate defendant, Lotusan, was unable to fulfill its discovery obligations in the last 6 months or why defense counsel did not respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempts to meet and confer.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motions are GRANTED and Defendants are ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Deem Admitted

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding 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 grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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).)

Defendants did not serve substantially compliant responses before the hearing. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted is GRANTED.

Monetary Sanctions

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t 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.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,588.09 for three hours of attorney time at $500 per hour for each motion. This amount includes 1 hour preparing the motion, 2 hours to draft a reply brief and appear at the hearing, and $88.09 for costs associated with filing the motion and reply.

First, Plaintiff should have filed 8 motions and paid 8 motion reservation fees, not 4. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $246.60 in filing fees to the clerk and file proof of payment with the Court.

Second, the hourly rate billed by the attorney for these motions is excessive given their relatively simple nature which requires little legal analysis. A more reasonable hourly rate for preparing these motions is $300.

Therefore, the Court only imposes sanctions against Defendants and counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $2,998.96, consisting of 8 hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $300, $493.20 in motion reservation fees, and $105.76 for e-filing fees. Sanctions shall be paid no later than 20 days after Plaintiff files proof that the additional motion reservation fees have been paid.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT27@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 8th day of April 2024