Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02572, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02572    Hearing Date: April 28, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          On March 25, 2025, plaintiff Suzanne Galindo (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion for an order compelling defendant Changyong Wang (“Defendant”) to “respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Admission, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One” and an order deeming the matters within her requests for admission admitted.

          On April 15, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition explaining that objection-only responses were served because counsel has not had an opportunity to speak with his client and that sanctions are inappropriate where no previous court order has been issued and violated.

          Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is defective because it should have been brought as a motion to compel further responses. Responses to interrogatories may consist of objections, answers, or an election to allow inspection and copying of records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a).) Similarly, responses to inspection demands and requests for admission may also consist of objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, subd. (a)(3); 2033.210, subd. (b).) Objections do not need to be verified. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, subd. (a); 2031.250, subd. (a); 2033.240, subd. (a).) A party’s remedy for unsatisfactory responses is a motion to compel further. A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a separate statement. (CRC 3.1345, subds. (a)(1)-(3).) Here, Defendant’s responses consist only of objections and were timely served.

          Plaintiff’s request for issue and evidence sanctions are also improper because it is not included in the notice of motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) A separate statement is also required for a motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions. (CRC 3.1345, subd. (a)(7).)

          Next, Plaintiff’s request to have the matters within her Requests for Admission deemed admitted is improper because there has not been, contrary to her representation, a “wholesale failure to respond.” (Motion, p. 6.) As stated above, objection-only responses are considered “responses” and an order deeming admitted is only available if a party “fails to serve a timely response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

          Last, Plaintiff improperly combines 4 motions into a single filing. A request for two different types of relief cannot be combined and must be filed as separate motions. (See Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2011) [8:1140.1] [“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately. But they may be joined where the requests are so interrelated as to make separate motions wholly inefficient (e.g., where several defendants have all failed to answer the same set of interrogatories.)”]) Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) By filing a single motion, Plaintiff paid only a single filing fee for what should have been four separate motions. (See Govt. Code, § 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing].) Combining multiple motions with one hearing reservation also manipulates the Court Reservation System and allows Plaintiff to unfairly jump ahead of other litigants.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Dated this 28th day of April 2025

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.