This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/20/2019 at 07:48:14 (UTC).

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB VS TOMMY TOSHIFUMI KAMINAKA

Case Summary

On 09/08/2017 INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against TOMMY TOSHIFUMI KAMINAKA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0810

  • Filing Date:

    09/08/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB

Defendant

KAMINAKA TOMMY TOSHIFUMI

2242 Gale Ave

Long Beach, CA 90810

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MENDELSON LEE MICHAEL

Defendant Attorney

FERGUSON BRETT CHAPIN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

5/20/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

7/19/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

8/16/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

3/8/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Answer

10/10/2017: Answer

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

10/10/2017: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

9/25/2017: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Summons - on Complaint

9/8/2017: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/8/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

9/8/2017: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9/8/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/11/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial: Status Date changed from 08/16/2019 to 08/16/2019; Filed By: Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 08/16/2019; As To Parties changed from Tommy Toshifumi Kaminaka (Defendant) to Tommy Toshifumi Kaminaka (Defendant); Status changed from Filed to Signed and Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order to Continue Trial; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club (Plaintiff); As to: Tommy Toshifumi Kaminaka (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/19/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 12/16/2019 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Tommy Toshifumi Kaminaka (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/19/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • DocketPursuant to oral stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 08/19/2019 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 10/10/2017
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Tommy Toshifumi Kaminaka (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Tommy Toshifumi Kaminaka (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club (Plaintiff); As to: Tommy Toshifumi Kaminaka (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 09/16/2017; Service Cost: 87.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club (Plaintiff); As to: Tommy Toshifumi Kaminaka (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Elaine Lu in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/08/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketOSC - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/11/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17STLC00810    Hearing Date: January 08, 2020    Dept: 94

Plaintiff’s Motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $1,020.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for subrogation and indebtedness against Defendant Tommy Toshifumi Kaminaka (“Defendant”).

On August 16, 2019, the parties stipulated to continue trial approximately 120 days “so that discovery and settlement discussions may proceed.” (8/16/19 Stipulation.) Trial is currently scheduled for January 8, 2020.

On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling that the Truth of Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Request for Sanctions (“RFA Motion”) and Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Sanctions (“Interrogatories Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

1. Request for Admissions

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product privilege…” (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 on Defendant Requests for Admission on December 7, 2018. (RFA Motion, Schwarz Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s request. (See Id., at ¶ 4.) No meet and confer efforts are required. Further, the RFA Motion is timely, as it can be brought at any time after the responding party fails to provide responses. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the requests for admission admitted against Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

1. Form Interrogatories  

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

 

Here, Plaintiff served on Defendant Form Interrogatories – Limited Civil Cases on December 7, 2018. (Interrogatories Motion, Schwarz Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant has not responded. (Id., at ¶ 4.) No meet and confer efforts are required. Further, the Interrogatories Motion is timely as it was filed before the December 24, 2019 cut-off for discovery motions. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order that Defendant serve responses to the interrogatories and without objections within 10 days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290.)

2. 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. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s request for admissions and form interrogatories a misuse of the discovery process. Because Plaintiff’s motions have been granted, monetary sanctions are mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2030.290, subdivision (c) and 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $3,720.00 in sanctions, which includes a $60.00 filing fee for each motion and a total of eight hours of attorney time billed at $450.00 per hour. (RFA Motion, Schwarz Decl., ¶ 5; Interrogatories Motion, Schwarz Decl., ¶ 5.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,020.00 based on two hours of attorney time plus two filing fees of $60.00. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

I. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $1,020.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.