This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/22/2021 at 08:06:15 (UTC).

COMMUNICATIONS RELAY, LLC VS BRANDON NAVARRO

Case Summary

On 04/10/2019 COMMUNICATIONS RELAY, LLC filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BRANDON NAVARRO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3518

  • Filing Date:

    04/10/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

COMMUNICATIONS RELAY LLC

Defendant

NAVARRO BRANDON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

WILKINSON CLAY

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment

10/19/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment

Judgment - Judgment

10/8/2021: Judgment - Judgment

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Mecias

9/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Mecias

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

9/21/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Julie Bachert, Esq. in Support of Req for Entry of Default

9/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Julie Bachert, Esq. in Support of Req for Entry of Default

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of James Kay in Support of Req for Entry of Default

9/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of James Kay in Support of Req for Entry of Default

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Benanti in Support

9/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Benanti in Support

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

9/21/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment/Dismissal)

9/22/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment/Dismissal)

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

9/22/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) - Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

9/16/2021: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) - Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

9/21/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore Susanne Onuki CSR #13734

2/2/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore Susanne Onuki CSR #13734

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

4/2/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Jury Trial)

6/23/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Jury Trial)

Answer - Answer

5/24/2019: Answer - Answer

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Mtn for Terminating Sanctions

1/25/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Mtn for Terminating Sanctions

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

2/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Brandon Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketDefault judgment by Court entered for Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC against Defendant Brandon Navarro on the Complaint filed by Communications Relay, LLC on 04/10/2019 for damages of $20,191.05, interest of $3,384.11, and costs of $3,085.27 for a total of $26,660.43.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketJudgment; Signed and Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Brandon Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment: As To Parties changed from Brandon Navarro (Defendant) to Brandon Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment/Dismissal scheduled for 12/01/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment/Dismissal scheduled for 12/01/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment/Dismissal)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment/Dismissal scheduled for 09/22/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 12/01/2021 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Brandon Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 05/24/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Brandon Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Brandon Navarro (Defendant); Service Date: 04/26/2019; Service Cost: 895.45; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Brandon Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Brandon Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Brandon Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/13/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03518    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., February 2, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Communications Relay, LLC v. Navarro COMPL. FILED: 04-10-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC03518 DISC. C/O: 05-24-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 06-08-21

TRIAL DATE: 06-23-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ISSUE AND EVIDENCE SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BRANDON NAVARRO, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.030)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Brandon Navarro’s Answer is HEREBY STRICKEN. However, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

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 January 29, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 29, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Brandon Navarro (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on May 24, 2019.

On March 9, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed (1) motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and (2) motion to deem Requests for Admission admitted against Defendant. (3/9/20 Minute Order.) Defendant was ordered to serve responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within thirty days of the order. (Id.) Notice of the Court’s order was served on Defendant on March 10, 2020 via regular mail. On June 30, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories and ordered Defendant to provide verified responses without objections within thirty days of the order. (Id.) Notice of the Court’s second discovery order was served on July 8, 2020 via regular mail.

On August 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, in the Alternative, Issue and Evidence Sanctions Against Defendant and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2025.450, subd. (h); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) An evidence sanction prohibits a party that misused the discovery process from introducing evidence on certain designated matters into evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

  1. Discussion

The Court finds terminating sanctions are warranted here. Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery motions and did not appear at the March 9 or June 30, 2020 hearings. (3/9/20 Minute Order; 6/30/20 Minute Order.) Plaintiff properly served notice of the Court’s March 9 and June 30 Orders granting Plaintiff’s unopposed discovery motions on March 10 and July 8, 2020, respectively, via regular mail. Despite the Court’s orders, Defendant has not provided any discovery responses. (Mot., Bachert Decl., ¶ 12.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Defendant’s failure to provide responses on two occasions a willful failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Notably, Defendant was properly served with this Motion but has not opposed it.

Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the evidence above demonstrates that Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser means. Defendant’s Answer is HEREBY STRICKEN. However, the Court declines to award Plaintiff monetary sanctions as such an order would be futile.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Brandon Navarro’s Answer is HEREBY STRICKEN. However, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03518    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories within thirty (30) days 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 June 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for conversion, trespass to chattels, and general negligence against Defendant Brandon Navarro (“Defendant”). On May 24, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer, in pro per.

On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Navarro’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Interrogatories Motion”); (2) Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One (the “RFA Motion”); and (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Navarro’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (the “Production Motion”). No oppositions were filed.

On March 9, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, as well as its request to deem Requests for Admission admitted. (3/9/20 Minute Order.) However, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s request to compel responses to Special Interrogatories for failure to pay the required filing fee and ordered it to do so. (Id.) The Court also requested that Plaintiff’s counsel file a supplemental declaration detailing her hourly rate, time expended, and costs incurred to determine a reasonable award of attorney’s fees in connection with the RFA Motion. (Id.)

To date, no opposition to the Interrogatories Motion has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Special Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories 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).) 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).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set One, on July 3, 2019 via regular mail. (Interrogatories Motion, Bachert Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant a meet and confer letter regarding the lack of discovery responses on October 10, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 5, Exh. C.) As of the date of this Interrogatories Motion, Plaintiff has not received any responses to its discovery request. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses to Special Interrogatories without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

B. Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Requests for Admission

As noted in the March 9, 2020 Order, 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).) Although the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to deem Requests for Admission admitted against Defendant Navarro, it requested a supplemental declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel as to her hourly rate and time expended on the RFA Motion so it could determine the appropriate amount of sanctions to award. (3/9/20 Minute Order.)

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Ruling indicating that it waived monetary sanctions in relation to its RFA Motion. (3/10/20 Notice of Ruling, p. 2:1-4.) Thus, no monetary sanctions are awarded.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03518    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

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC’s (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Navarro’s Reponses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One, and (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Navarro’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and request for sanctions is CONTINUED to APRIL 29, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional filing fee for the Special Interrogatories motion. In addition, at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to obey the Court’s order may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for conversion, trespass to chattels, and general negligence against Defendant Brandon Navarro (“Defendant”). On May 24, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer, in pro per.

On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Navarro’s Reponses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Interrogatories Motion”); (2) Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One (the “RFA Motion”); and (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Navarro’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (the “Production Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Improper Combination of Discovery Motions

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff impermissibly attempts to combine multiple requests for relief into a single motion. Specifically, Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories in one motion. However, filing as a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system.

In addition, combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Defendant has only paid one filing fee for what should have been two separate motions.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to pay one additional filing fee for the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. The Court will only rule as to the request to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

  1. Form Interrogatories & Request 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 of Documents, Set One, on July 3, 2019, by mail. (Interrogatories Mot., Bachert Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. B; Production Mot., Bachert Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant a meet and confer letter on October 10, 2019 regarding the lack of responses to the discovery. (Interrogatories Mot., Bachert Decl., at ¶ 5, Exh. C; Production Mot., Bachert Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) To date, Plaintiff has not received any responses. (Interrogatories Mot., Bachert Decl., at ¶¶ 6-7; Production Mot., Bachert Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300.)

  1. 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 July 3, 2019, by mail. (RFA Mot., Bachert Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Although not required, on October 10, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant a meet and confer regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶4, Exh. B.) To date, Plaintiff has not received any responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

  1. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 states that 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).) However, as Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration does not detail her hourly rate, time spent preparing this RFA Motion, or filing costs, the Court cannot determine the proper amount of sanctions at this time. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to submit a supplemental declaration providing this information.

  1. Conclusion & Order

Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC’s (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Navarro’s Reponses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One, and (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Navarro’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and request for sanctions is CONTINUED to APRIL 29, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional filing fee for the Special Interrogatories motion. In addition, at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to obey the Court’s order may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COMMUNICATIONS RELAY, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WILKINSON CLAY R.