This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/14/2021 at 23:20:36 (UTC).

FELIX RODRIGUEZ VS WIN CHEVROLET, INC.

Case Summary

On 09/28/2020 FELIX RODRIGUEZ filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against WIN CHEVROLET, INC. 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:

    *******8141

  • Filing Date:

    09/28/2020

  • 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

RODRIGUEZ FELIX

Defendants

WIN CHEVROLET INC.

MOSHABAD EMIL

HEUER JERRY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MEHRBAN MORSE

Defendant Attorney

MOLINO ANTHONY

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

5/13/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

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

5/12/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses

4/26/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel

4/16/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

4/5/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

4/5/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Notice (name extension) - Notice to Attend Trial

3/29/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice to Attend Trial

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

2/22/2021: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

2/22/2021: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Answer - Answer

3/23/2021: Answer - Answer

Answer - Answer

11/19/2020: Answer - Answer

Notice (name extension) - Notice to Attend Trial

11/25/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice to Attend Trial

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9/28/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

9/28/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

9/28/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/28/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

9/28/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9/28/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/28/2022
  • Hearing03/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment or Order; Filed by: Felix Rodriguez (Plaintiff); As to: WIN Chevrolet, Inc. (Defendant); Emil Moshabad (Defendant); Jerry Heuer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 05/12/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 05/12/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/02/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 03/23/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2021
  • DocketReply to Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses; Filed by: WIN Chevrolet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2021
  • DocketOpposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel; Filed by: Felix Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 05/12/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2021
  • DocketMotion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Filed by: WIN Chevrolet, Inc. (Defendant); As to: Felix Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2021
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by: WIN Chevrolet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/02/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Felix Rodriguez (Plaintiff); As to: WIN Chevrolet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Felix Rodriguez (Plaintiff); As to: WIN Chevrolet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Felix Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Felix Rodriguez (Plaintiff); As to: WIN Chevrolet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Felix Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC08141    Hearing Date: May 12, 2021    Dept: 26

Rodriguez v. Win Chevrolet, Inc., et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Win Chevrolet, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED. WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER, DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $475.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Felix Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendant Win Chevrolet, Inc. (“Defendant Win”) on September 28, 2020. Additional defendants were added by “Doe” amendment on February 22, 2021. The Complaint is brought on the grounds that Plaintiff is a paraplegic and needs hand controls installed on a vehicle in order to drive. (Compl., ¶¶2-4.) Defenant Win allegedly refused to install hand controls when Plaintiff came in for a test drive. (Ibid.)

Defendant Win filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories on April 5, 2021. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 16, 2021 and Defendant Win replied on April 26, 2021.

Discussion

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., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff’s initial responses were served on March 17, 2021. (Motion, Molino Decl., Exh. B.) The notice of motion and motion to compel further were timely served on April 5, 2021. (Motion, POS.)

The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) The Motion attaches a meet and confer declaration that shows the parties’ attorneys discussed the propriety of the responses over several letters. (Motion, Molino Decl., Exhs. C-E.) Therefore, the meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

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).) The Motion is accompanied by a separate statement, as required.

Plaintiff seeks a further response to Special Interrogatory, Nos. 1-4.

Special Interrogatory No. 1

Special Interrogatory No. 1 asks Plaintiff to “[i]dentify each CLAIM for damages based on DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, YOU or anyone action on YOUR behalf have made within the ten (10) years.” During the meet and confer, defense counsel clarified that “anyone action on your behalf” should be “anyone acting on your behalf.” In response, Plaintiff objected that the request was not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, was equally available to the propounding party and was vague. The objections that the request is vague or equally available to the propounding party are without merit. Defendant clarified the confusing phrase during the meet and confer and there is nothing to show that claims that were never filed as actions are available to the public.

The gravamen of the parties’ discovery dispute is whether Plaintiff has an obligation to respond to discovery regarding his history of making claims of discrimination on the basis of his disability. Plaintiff argues that any claims he has made are not relevant to the merits of this action, while Defendant argues that those prior claims go to Plaintiff’s credibility and vexatiousness. Prior claims that Plaintiff made before filing any action for discrimination do not speak to his being a vexatious litigant under the relevant statutes. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b).) Those statutes only pertain to actions filed in court. (Ibid.) As to credibility, Defendant has not persuaded this Court that Plaintiff’s prior claims are relevant. Defendant cites to Cal. Evidence Code section 780 but does not explain how Plaintiff’s prior claims have a “tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony.” Defendant also cites to Karcezewski v. DCH Mission Valley LLC (9th Cir. 2017) 862 F.3d l006, regarding the factors relevant to the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s request to use hand controls during a test drive. However, none of the facts listed in Karcezewski refer to the plaintiff’s prior experience with dealerships and hand controls. (Karcezewski v. DCH Mission Valley LLC (9th Cir. 2017) 862 F.3d l006, 1010-1011.) The relevant factors pertain to “the effectiveness of the modification in light of the nature of the disability in question and the cost to the organization that would implement it.” (Id. at 1011.)

In opposition, Plaintiff cites to authorities that find litigation history is not relevant to the merits of a disability case. (See Wilson v. Murillo (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1128, n. 3; Kittok v. Leslie's Poolmart, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2009) 687 F.Supp.2d 953, 958 [court will not deny attorney’s fees absent a showing that the particular case was frivolous, abusive, or somehow brought in bad faith]; Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 643 F.3d 1165, 1175 [cautioning courts to tread lightly before considering a Disability Act plaintiff’s history of litigation against him].) Plaintiff offers no counter-authority where a court has allowed discovery of this type in a discrimination action.

Therefore, the request to compel further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 1 is denied.

Special Interrogatory No. 2

This request seeks the names and contact information for each respondent identified in response to Special Interrogatory, No. 1. For the reasons stated above, the request to compel Plaintiff’ s further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 2 is also denied.

Special Interrogatory No. 3

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to “[i]dentify each COMPLAINT for damages YOU or anyone act[ing] on YOUR behalf have filed in all State and Federal Courts within the ten (10) years.” First, this information is available to the public. Defendant makes no argument that complaints filed by Plaintiff would not be in the public record. It also remains that Defendant points the Court to no authority that information regarding Plaintiff purported vexatiousness as a litigant is appropriately sought through discovery. Plaintiff’s request for further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 3 is denied.

Special Interrogatory No. 4

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff for the court name, case name and case number with respect to each complaint identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 3. For the reasons discussed above, this request is also denied.

Sanctions

Based on Defendant’s unsuccessful motion Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 and 2023.010. The sanctions are properly noticed and but excessive under a lodestar calculation. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $475.00 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $475.00 per hour. (Motion, Mehrban Decl., ¶¶2-3.)

 

Conclusion

Defendant Win Chevrolet, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED. WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER, DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $475.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL.

Plaintiff to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WIN CHEVROLET INC. DBA WIN HYUNDAI CARSON is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MOLINO ANTHONY A. ESQ.