This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/09/2021 at 11:33:27 (UTC).

DANNIE MAEDA VS OTILIA GOMEZ, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/27/2020 DANNIE MAEDA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against OTILIA GOMEZ. 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 Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1982

  • Filing Date:

    02/27/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MAEDA DANNIE

Defendants

GOMEZ JOEL

GOMEZ OTILIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DUNHAM DONALD TILDON

Defendant Attorneys

MOSKOVIAN ANY

COLMAN JONATHAN HILLEL

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

4/27/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

4/5/2021: Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

4/7/2021: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

4/8/2021: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

1/12/2021: Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

1/19/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); DECLARATION OF JENNY R. LOURO; DECLARATION OF

1/21/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); DECLARATION OF JENNY R. LOURO; DECLARATION OF

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); DECLARATION OF JENNY R. LOURO;

1/21/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); DECLARATION OF JENNY R. LOURO;

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT JOEL GOMEZS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); DECLARATION OF JENNY R. LOURO; DECLARATION OF SH

1/21/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT JOEL GOMEZS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); DECLARATION OF JENNY R. LOURO; DECLARATION OF SH

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

1/22/2021: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFF, DANNIE MAEDA'$ REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZ TO PROVIDE A VERIFIED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); RE

1/28/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFF, DANNIE MAEDA'$ REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZ TO PROVIDE A VERIFIED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); RE

Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFF, DANNIE MAEDA'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZ TO PROVIDE A VERIFIED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S PRODUCTION DEMAND (SET ONE); REQUE

1/28/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFF, DANNIE MAEDA'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZ TO PROVIDE A VERIFIED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S PRODUCTION DEMAND (SET ONE); REQUE

Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFF, DANNIE MAEDA'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT JOEL GOMEZ TO PROVIDE A VEREIFIED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET NO, ONE);

1/28/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFF, DANNIE MAEDA'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT JOEL GOMEZ TO PROVIDE A VEREIFIED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET NO, ONE);

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

2/3/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice Plaintiff Dannie Maeda's Notice of Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to Provide a Response to Plaintiff's Demand for Production...

8/4/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Plaintiff Dannie Maeda's Notice of Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to Provide a Response to Plaintiff's Demand for Production...

Notice (name extension) - Notice Plaintiff Dannie Maeda's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to provide a Response...

8/4/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Plaintiff Dannie Maeda's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to provide a Response...

Notice (name extension) - Notice Plaintiff Dannie Maeda's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant Joel Gomez to provide a Response...

8/4/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Plaintiff Dannie Maeda's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant Joel Gomez to provide a Response...

Answer - Answer

5/12/2020: Answer - Answer

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/03/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 07/07/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 05/03/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by DANNIE MAEDA on 02/27/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by DANNIE MAEDA as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 07/07/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/02/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 04/07/2021 to 04/07/2021; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Jonathan Hillel Colman (Attorney): Organization Name changed from Colman Law Group to Colman Perkins Law Group

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2021
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by: OTILIA GOMEZ (Defendant); JOEL GOMEZ (Defendant); New Firm Name: Colman Perkins Law Group

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 04/10/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: DANNIE MAEDA (Plaintiff); As to: OTILIA GOMEZ (Defendant); Service Date: 04/02/2020; Service Cost: 20.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/02/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: DANNIE MAEDA (Plaintiff); As to: OTILIA GOMEZ (Defendant); JOEL GOMEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: DANNIE MAEDA (Plaintiff); As to: OTILIA GOMEZ (Defendant); JOEL GOMEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: DANNIE MAEDA (Plaintiff); As to: OTILIA GOMEZ (Defendant); JOEL GOMEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: DANNIE MAEDA (Plaintiff); As to: OTILIA GOMEZ (Defendant); JOEL GOMEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC01982    Hearing Date: February 03, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., February 3, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Maeda v. Gomez, et al. COMPL. FILED: 02-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC01982 DISC. C/O: 07-27-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 08-11-21

TRIAL DATE: 08-26-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZ TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT OTILIA GOMEZ TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(3) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT JOEL GOMEZ TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Dannie Maeda

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Otilia Gomez and Joel Gomez

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Dannie Maeda's (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to Provide Responses to Demand for Production, Set One, and (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Joel Gomez to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are DENIED. However, Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $425.00 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: Filed on January 12, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on January 28, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff Dannie Maeda (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Otilia Gomez (“Otilia”) and Joel Gomez (“Joel”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed a joint Answer on May 12, 2020.

On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to Provide Responses to Demand for Production, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions; and (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Joel Gomez to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). Defendants filed Oppositions on January 12, 2021, and Plaintiff filed Replies on January 28.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production & Interrogatories

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’s counsel served each Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Defendant Otilia with a Demand for Production, Set One, on May 13, 2020 via regular mail. (Motions, Dunham Decls. ¶¶ 3, Exhs. A.) After not receiving any responses to the discovery, Plaintiff’s counsel states his office sent a meet and confer letter to Defendants’ counsel on June 19, 2020 via facsimile and regular mail. (Id., ¶¶ 4, Exhs. B.) Having never received responses, Plaintiff argues it “became abundantly clear that [Defendants] would not provide a verified responsive response to the discovery.” (Id. at ¶ 5.)

In Opposition, Defendants’ counsel Sheryl Reeves presents evidence that on May 11, 2020, her office sent Plaintiff’s office an email to dunhamlaw@yourlegalneeds.net with a copy of Defendants’ Answer and alerting Plaintiff’s counsel to the following:

“Due to concerns regarding COVID-19, governmental directives, and everyone’s safety, our office has temporarily transitioned to working remotely.

We are not capable of receiving or processing documents sent by mail, fax, or hand delivery in a timely manner…

Effective immediately, until you are advised that our regular mail processing has been restored, we ask that you use the following electronic service address for documents requiring service: serviceLOODDE@kempercorporation.onmicrosoft.com

All other communication can be directed to the team via e-mail as follows:

(Oppo., Reeves Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) (Emphasis added.)

Emergency Rule 12, which has since been codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(2), requires that a party represented by counsel must electronically serve a party that requests it with any notice or document that may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery or facsimile transmission.

Defendants’ counsel elected to be served with any notice or document electronically and gave notice of this preference to Plaintiff’s counsel on May 11, 2020. Yet, Plaintiff’s counsel proceeded to serve Defendants’ counsel via mail and facsimile anyway. (Motions, Dunham Decls. ¶¶ 3, 4, Exhs. A, B.)

In Reply, Plaintiff’s counsel denies having received the notice regarding electronic service and instead attaches an email from May 12, 2020 to demonstrate no such notice was attached. (Reply, p. 2:13-24, Ramirez Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) The email Plaintiff’s counsel presents is also addressed to dunhamlaw@yourlegalneeds.net. (Id.) However, he does not explain why he did not receive the May 11, 2020 email with the notice regarding electronic service, but did receive the May 12, 2020 email at the same email address. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s argument that he did not receive notice regarding Defendants’ counsel’s preference for electronic service unpersuasive.

As the discovery requests were not electronically served according to Defendants’ counsel’s preference under Emergency Rule 12 and now, Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(2), Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.

B. 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 using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (b).)

Defendants present evidence that on July 6, 2020, Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel she had not received the discovery requests because, as noted in the May 11, 2020 email, Defendants’ counsel’s firm had no physical access to their building to retrieve mail nor access to fax. (Oppo., Reeves Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5.) Defendants’ counsel indicated responses would be provided once she was served with the requests electronically. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to this email. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendants’ counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the discovery dispute on January 13, 2021 but was unsuccessful. (Id., Louro Decl., ¶ 3.)

Because Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants’ counsel with the discovery requests electronically pursuant to Emergency Rule 12, now codified under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(2), and because Plaintiff’s counsel continues to insist Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses despite lack of proper service, the Court finds Plaintiff used a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with the required procedures.

Defendants’ counsel states she spent 9 hours reviewing Plaintiff’s Motions and preparing three Oppositions and that she anticipates spending another 6 hours reviewing a reply, preparing for the hearing, and attending the hearing. (Oppositions, Louro Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendants’ counsel further states her hourly rate is $170.00, but only requests $850.00, based on $283.00 per Motion. (Id.) However, the request excessive given that the Motions and Oppositions are nearly identical. The Court finds $425.00, based on 2.5 hours of attorney time, to be reasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Dannie Maeda's (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Otilia Gomez to Provide Responses to Demand for Production, Set One, and (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Joel Gomez to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, are DENIED. However, Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $425.00 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer COLEMAN JONATHAN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MOSKOVIAN ANY