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.
*******2187
03/05/2020
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SERENA R. MURILLO
DIANE DAVIS
CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
DAVIDSON PERRIN
LINK JAMES S.
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
3/11/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
3/11/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)
3/12/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice Taking The Motion Set For Hearing On May 19, 2021 Is Off Calendar
2/5/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
2/5/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
2/16/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment
2/26/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to motion to compel further responses
10/30/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement
10/30/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
7/10/2020: Answer - Answer
4/28/2020: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint
4/28/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint
3/5/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
3/5/2020: Complaint - Complaint
3/5/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint
3/5/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
3/5/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearing03/09/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing09/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
Hearing06/01/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment
Hearing05/19/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses: Filed By: CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. Erroneously Sued As CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant); Result: Granted in Part; Result Date: 03/11/2021
DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 05/19/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. Erroneously Sued As CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 03/11/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 05/19/2021 10:30 AM
DocketReply 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 Her Counsel Of Record Perrin Davidson; Filed by: CCC Woodland Hills, Inc. Erroneously Sued As CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff)
DocketAmended Complaint; Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff); As to: CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
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
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff); As to: CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff); As to: CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Davis Diane (Plaintiff); As to: CALIFORNIA CHICKEN CAFE. a California limited partnership (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
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.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases