Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV21468, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 19STCV21468 Hearing Date: April 18, 2023 Dept: 31
PROCEEDINGS:¿ MOTION TO
COMPEL FROGS
¿
MOVING PARTY:¿ Plaintiffs, Jessica
Stevens and Frederick Stevens
RESP.¿ PARTY:¿ None
MOTION TO COMPEL FROGS
TENTATIVE RULING
plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant NBA Automotive, Inc. (“NBA”) to
provide verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set Two is
GRANTED.
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs’
request for sanctions in the amount of $895.85 against Defendant NBA
Automotive, Inc.
Legal Standard
Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery
requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300,
2033.280; 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).)¿ Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to
compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding
party has no meet and confer obligations.¿(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿¿¿
¿¿
¿If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order
compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the
party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection
unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would
otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300,
2033.28;¿Sinaiko¿Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th
at 404.)¿¿
Discussion
Motion to Compel
FROGS
On February 19,
2020, Plaintiffs served Defendant NBA with Form Interrogatories (FROGS), Set
Two. To date, NBA has not provided a response. (Cook Decl. ¶¶ 2, 9.) NBA filed
its Answer to Plaintiff TAC on January 16, 2020. Plaintiff believes that at the
time it propounded discovery on NBA, it remained an active corporation. (Cook
Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) However, as of December 13, 2022, Plaintiff believes that
NBA has been suspended by the Franchise Tax Board. (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. 3.)
Plaintiff sent a
letter via email to NBA asking it to provide verified responses in November of
2022, but no response was provided.
The FROGS concern two interrogatories:
Interrogatory 1.1, which seeks the identity of the individuals who assisted
with the preparation of the responses, and Interrogatory 15.1, which seeks the
factual and evidentiary basis for NBA’s denials and defenses.
The Court notes that Counsel for
Defendant NBA has changed address and the address to which this motion was
mailed to is no longer defense counsel’s business address. However, the
Plaintiffs’ also served this motion to defense counsel by email, which remained
unchanged.
The Court assumes notice was proper
and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
Request for
Sanctions
“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. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and
authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting
the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”¿
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)¿
Here, Plaintiffs’
notice of motion seeks $993.85 in sanctions against NBA Automotive.
Plaintiffs’
counsel’s hourly rate is $320.00 per hour. (Cook Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs’
counsel spent 0.3 hour drafting a portion of the November 08, 2022 letter to
NBA counsel seeking a response. (Id. ¶ 14.) Counsel spent 1.8 hours
drafting this motion and its supporting papers. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs’
counsel anticipates spending at least 1.0 hour attending the hearing on this
motion. Plaintiffs also request $65.85 in costs consisting of a $61.65
hearing-reservation fee, a $2.24 court transaction, and a $1.95 electronic
filing fee. (Id. ¶ 16.)
The Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $832.00 plus $65.85 in
costs, for 2.60 hours of work against Defendant NBA.
Conclusion
plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant NBA Automotive, Inc. (“NBA”) to
provide verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set Two is
GRANTED.
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs’
request for sanctions in the amount of $895.85 against Defendant NBA
Automotive, Inc.
Moving party to give
notice.