This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/21/2021 at 13:28:47 (UTC).

DAVIS DIANE VS CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Case Summary

On 03/05/2020 DAVIS DIANE filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2187

  • Filing Date:

    03/05/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DIANE DAVIS

Defendant

CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DAVIDSON PERRIN

Defendant Attorney

LINK JAMES S.

 

Court Documents

Request (name extension) - Request To Court Clerk To Void Action

10/5/2021: Request (name extension) - Request To Court Clerk To Void Action

Notice of Status Conference and Order - Notice of Status Conference and Order

10/8/2021: Notice of Status Conference and Order - Notice of Status Conference and Order

Clerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required - Clerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required

8/25/2021: Clerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required - Clerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

6/1/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Response (name extension) - Response To Plaintiffs Objections To Declaration Of Defendant [sic] Andre De Montesquiou

5/26/2021: Response (name extension) - Response To Plaintiffs Objections To Declaration Of Defendant [sic] Andre De Montesquiou

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/26/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Objection (name extension) - Objection To Declaration Of Plaintiff Diane Davis

5/26/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection To Declaration Of Plaintiff Diane Davis

Reply (name extension) - Reply To Undisputed Facts In Opposition To The Motion For Summary Judgment Of Defendant CCC Woodland Hills, Inc.

5/26/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply To Undisputed Facts In Opposition To The Motion For Summary Judgment Of Defendant CCC Woodland Hills, Inc.

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

5/27/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment

5/10/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment

Objection (name extension) - Objection to Declaration

5/10/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection to Declaration

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

5/10/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Reply (name extension) - Reply To Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses And For Costs Incurred Including Reasonable Attorney Fees In The Amount Of $4310.00 Against Plaintiff And H

3/4/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply To Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses And For Costs Incurred Including Reasonable Attorney Fees In The Amount Of $4310.00 Against Plaintiff And H

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/11/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

3/11/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

Notice (name extension) - Notice Taking The Motion Set For Hearing On May 19, 2021 Is Off Calendar

3/12/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice Taking The Motion Set For Hearing On May 19, 2021 Is Off Calendar

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

2/5/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

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

2/5/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/08/2021
  • Hearing12/08/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketStatus Conference re: Unpaid Reclassification Fees scheduled for 12/08/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketNotice of Status Conference and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2021
  • DocketRequest To Court Clerk To Void Action; Filed by: CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. Erroneously Sued As CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • DocketClerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required; Filed by: Clerk; As to: Davis Diane (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 06/01/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 06/01/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 06/01/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. Erroneously Sued As CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant); As to: CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. Erroneously Sued As CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by: CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. Erroneously Sued As CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
25 More Docket Entries
  • 04/28/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2020
  • DocketAmended Complaint; Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff); As to: CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/09/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff); As to: CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff); As to: CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff); As to: CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC02187    Hearing Date: June 1, 2021    Dept: 26

Davis v. California Chicken Café, et al

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Based on the relief sought in the First Amended Complaint, this case is reclassified as an unlimited civil case and transferred to the Reclassification/Transfer Desk for collection of fees and reassignment of the case to an Independent Calendar Court. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within ten (10) days.

All hearing dates in this Department, including Defendant CCC Woodland Hills, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, are vacated and to be rescheduled in the new department.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Diane Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“the Unruh Act”) against Defendant CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. (erroneously sued as California Chicken Café) (“Defendant”) on March 5, 2020. The First Amended Complaint was filed on April 28, 2020.

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on October 30, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 10, 2021.

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges she is a California resident with physical disabilities. (FAC, ¶1.) She further alleges that when she visited sought to visit Defendant’s restaurant in Woodland Hills, California on October 19, 2018, the lack of handicap compliant parking caused her difficulty in accessing the facility. (Id. at ¶¶6-7.) The alleged lack of accessible parking denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the restaurant. (Id. at ¶7.) Plaintiff experienced these same difficulties during several more visits to the restaurant over the next few months. (Id. at ¶¶8-10.) In addition to monetary damages, the Complaint requests “an order providing permanent injunctive relief, permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing the acts which are set forth in this Complaint.” (Id., Prayer, ¶6.)

As a limited jurisdiction court, this Court has no authority to issue permanent injunctive relief, subject to certain exceptions that are not applicable here. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 85, 86.) Based on the relief sought in the Complaint and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (a), this case is reclassified as an unlimited civil case and transferred to the Reclassification/Transfer Desk for collection of fees and reassignment of the case to an Independent Calendar Court. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within ten (10) days.

Defendant CCC Woodland Hills, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ALL HEARING DATES IN THIS DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING DEFENDANT’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ARE VACATED AND TO BE RESCHEDULED IN THE NEW DEPARTMENT.

Court clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC02187    Hearing Date: March 11, 2021    Dept: 26

Davis v. California Chicken Café LP, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2033.290, 2030.300, 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:   

Defendant CCC Woodland Hills, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Requests for Admission, Amended Special Interrogatories and Amended Requests for Production; Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE REQUEST COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR THE SAME. SANCTIONS OF $810.00 ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD, TO BE PAID TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

THE HEARING IS CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 2021 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE TO ADDRESS SANCTIONS AS TO THE AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND AMENDED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, DEFENDANT IS TO PAY TWO (2) ADDITIONAL FILING FEES. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE REMAINDER OF THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff Diane Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. (erroneously sued as California Chicken Café, LP) for discrimination on the basis of disability. A First Amended Complaint was filed on April 28, 2020 and Defendant answered on July 10, 2020.

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Requests for Admission, Amended Special Interrogatories and Amended Requests for Production; and Request For Sanctions on October 30, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 26, 2021 and Defendant replied on March 4, 2021.

Discussion

Initially, the Court addresses the fact that Defendant has filed a single discovery motion to compel further responses under three different discovery statutes with respect to three separate sets of discovery. Yet Defendant has paid only a single filing fee. Filing the motions 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. Furthermore, it allows the party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Payment of motion fees is a condition precedent to the filing of the particular motion and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Defendant’s motion, therefore, cannot be heard in full until all three filing fees are paid.

Accordingly, the Court will only address the Motion with respect to the Amended Requests for Admission.

Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) Following service of initial Requests for Admissions and a meet and confer by the parties, Plaintiff withdrew the initial Requests and served Amended Requests for Admission on Defendant on September 1, 2020. (Motion, Link Decl., ¶¶3, 5, 6, 9-13 and Exh. 9.) Plaintiff served responses to the Amended Requests on October 7, 2020. (Id. at Exh. 11.) Defendant timely filed the instant Motion on October 30, 2020.

Also, the motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).) Defendant filed a declaration demonstrating that the parties engaged in extensive meet and confer after service of the initial responses and continuing after service of the Amended Requests for Admission. (Motion, Link Decl., ¶¶3-13.) No supplemental responses were served prior to the filing of the Motion. (Id. at ¶19 and Exh. 14.) The meet and confer requirement, therefore, is satisfied.

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(2).) The Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed 10/30/20.)

On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff served further responses to the Amended Requests for Admission. (Opp., Davidson Decl., ¶13 and Exh. 1.) Both parties agree that the Motion is moot as to the request for further responses but disagree as to whether sanctions should be awarded. (Opp., Davidson Decl., ¶13; Reply, p. 2:4-5.)

The parties’ attorneys had agreed that the initial Requests for Admission would be re-drafted so that they were separately numbered, did not contain sub-parts and were otherwise code-compliant. (Motion, Link Decl., Exh. 7.) In exchange, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to withdraw the objections of vague and ambiguous as to the phrases “accurately shows” and “visited the property.” (Ibid.) The Amended Requests for Admission were re-drafted to separately seek admissions for the four different dates of Plaintiff’s visits to Defendant’s property. (Id. at Exhs. 1 and 8.) Plaintiff again objected to the Amended Requests, using the same objections that should have been withdrawn (vague, ambiguous, use of subparts). (Id. at Exh. 11.) Plaintiff also added a meritless objection that the Requests seek a legal conclusion, which is permitted under the propounding statute. (Id. at Exh. 11; Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) Based on the foregoing and Plaintiff’s subsequent service of further responses after this Motion was filed, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections to the Amended Requests were improper. Sanctions are appropriately sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (d).) Using a lodestar calculation, sanctions are awarded in the amount of $810.00 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $250.00 per hour. (Motion, Link Decl., ¶20.)

Conclusion

Defendant CCC Woodland Hills, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Requests for Admission, Amended Special Interrogatories and Amended Requests for Production; Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE REQUEST COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR THE SAME. SANCTIONS OF $810.00 ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD, TO BE PAID TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

THE HEARING IS CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 2021 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE TO ADDRESS SANCTIONS AS TO THE AMENDED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND AMENDED REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, DEFENDANT IS TO PAY TWO (2) ADDITIONAL FILING FEES. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE REMAINDER OF THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE LP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AKA CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LINK JAMES S.