This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/17/2019 at 00:15:29 (UTC).

CARLA SHAW DE HERAS VS BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL

Case Summary

On 03/16/2018 a Contract - Debt Collection case was filed by CARLA SHAW DE HERAS against BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6451

  • Filing Date:

    03/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

RICK BROWN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CARLA SHAW DE HERAS

Defendant

DARNELL BRENDA FOSTER

 

Court Documents

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

11/6/2018: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/6/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Order (name extension) - Order Granting Relief For Defendant To File Her Answer To Plaintiff's Complaint

12/3/2018: Order (name extension) - Order Granting Relief For Defendant To File Her Answer To Plaintiff's Complaint

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

12/3/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

Answer - Answer

12/3/2018: Answer - Answer

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...) of 12/03/2018

12/3/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...) of 12/03/2018

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

12/10/2018: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

12/10/2018: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Summons - on Complaint

3/16/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/16/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

3/16/2018: Complaint

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/12/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/12/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

3/16/2018: Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

3/16/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/03/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department F43 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/03/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 scheduled for 03/22/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/03/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL (Defendant); As to: CARLA SHAW DE HERAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL (Defendant); As to: CARLA SHAW DE HERAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment: Filed By: BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 12/03/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • DocketOrder Granting Relief For Defendant To File Her Answer To Plaintiff's Complaint; Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by CARLA SHAW DE HERAS on 03/16/2018, Default entered on 06/12/2018, Vacated - .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketDefault entered as to BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL; On the Complaint filed by CARLA SHAW DE HERAS on 03/16/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: CARLA SHAW DE HERAS (Plaintiff); As to: BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 04/09/2018; Service Cost: 69.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: CARLA SHAW DE HERAS (Plaintiff); As to: BRENDA FOSTER DARNELL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: CARLA SHAW DE HERAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Rick Brown in Department F43 Chatsworth Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 scheduled for 03/22/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketThe case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18CHLC06451    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Carla Shaw De Heras’ (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, and (3) Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Request for Production within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $580.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 6, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 6, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 16, 2018, Plaintiff Carla Shaw de Heras (“Plaintiff”) filed an action at the Chatsworth Courthouse for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Brenda Foster Darnell (“Defendant”). On December 3, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer, in pro per.

On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Monetary Sanction (the “Interrogatories Motion”), (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, and Monetary Sanction (the “Production Motion”), and (3) Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Imposing Monetary Sanction (the “RFA Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

Because this action was determined not to be a collections case, on November 19, 2019, the action was transferred from Department F43 at the Chatsworth Courthouse to this Department. (11/19/19 Minute Order.)

To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One, on June 25, 2019 by regular mail. (Interrogatories Mot. & Production Mot., Boon Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant a meet and confer letter on August 7, 2019 regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Plaintiff did not receive any responses. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300.)

B. Requests for Admission

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting 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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set One, on June 25, 2019, by regular mail. (Mot., Boon Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not received any responses to the discovery request. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

C. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Defendant for failing to respond to Requests for Admissions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $2,980.00 in sanctions, which includes 14 hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour and three filing fees of $60.00 each. (Interrogatories Mot. & Production Mot., Boon Decl., ¶ 5; RFA Mot., ¶ 4.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Plaintiff’s requests are GRANTED in the reduced amount of $580.00 based on two hours of attorney time and three filing fees. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Carla Shaw de Heras’ (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, and (3) Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Request for Production within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $580.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.