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.