This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/31/2021 at 01:40:55 (UTC).

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMBOILE CLUB VS RONALD PODELL

Case Summary

On 11/12/2019 INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMBOILE CLUB filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against RONALD PODELL. 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:

    *******0436

  • Filing Date:

    11/12/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMBOILE CLUB

Defendant

PODELL RONALD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

COHEN ESQ LAURA

CHUN ARANG

Defendant Attorney

KINGSTON PAUL

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

8/17/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Trial Brief - Trial Brief

8/2/2021: Trial Brief - Trial Brief

Witness List - Witness List

8/2/2021: Witness List - Witness List

Motion in Limine (name extension) - Motion in Limine Motion in Limine #1 with Proposed Order

4/15/2021: Motion in Limine (name extension) - Motion in Limine Motion in Limine #1 with Proposed Order

Motion in Limine (name extension) - Motion in Limine Motion in Limine #4 with Proposed Order

4/15/2021: Motion in Limine (name extension) - Motion in Limine Motion in Limine #4 with Proposed Order

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

5/10/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order and Proposed Order to Continue Trial

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Errata re Motion to Compel Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories

6/5/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Errata re Motion to Compel Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel responses to Request for Admissions

6/25/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel responses to Request for Admissions

Reply (name extension) - Reply Plaintiff's reply to Deft Opposition to Plaintiff's MTC responses to Request for Production of Documents

6/25/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply Plaintiff's reply to Deft Opposition to Plaintiff's MTC responses to Request for Production of Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel responses to Special Interrogatories

6/25/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel responses to Special Interrogatories

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel production of documents

6/26/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Compel production of documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/2/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

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

7/2/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

3/3/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

3/3/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Answer - Answer

3/3/2020: Answer - Answer

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/12/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

11/12/2019: Complaint - Complaint

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/25/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 10/12/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/25/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club on 11/12/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Laura Cohen, Esq (Attorney): First Name changed from Arang to Laura; Last Name changed from Chun to Cohen, Esq

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Change of Handling Attorney; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club (Plaintiff); As to: Ronald Podell (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 10/12/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/05/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketTrial Brief; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketWitness List; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
34 More Docket Entries
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Ronald Podell (Defendant); As to: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club (Plaintiff); As to: Ronald Podell (Defendant); Service Date: 11/24/2019; Service Cost: 97.02; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/11/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club (Plaintiff); As to: Ronald Podell (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club (Plaintiff); As to: Ronald Podell (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automboile Club (Plaintiff); As to: Ronald Podell (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10436    Hearing Date: July 07, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED AS MOOT. However, Plaintiff’s request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $245.00 to be paid 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 June 25, 2020 [X] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on June 25, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Ronald Podell (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On March 3, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). On June 25, 2020, Defendant filed a late Opposition. That same day, Plaintiff filed a timely Reply.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

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

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 failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Special Interrogatories, Set, One, on January 27, 2020 via regular mail. (Motion, Chun Decl., ¶ 3; Notice of Errata, Exh. A.) Although not required, on March 13, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a letter regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Motion, Chun Decl., ¶ 4; Notice of Errata, Exh. B.)

In Opposition, Defendant argues that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on Defendant’s counsel’s law practice, his delay in responding to the discovery was justified. (Opposition, p. 3:15-24; Shomloo Decl., ¶ 2.) Specifically, he argues that, out of fear of the virus, his only legal assistant cut her workdays from five to one, and her daily hours to only five. (Id.) In addition, he mentions in passing without providing any additional details that Defendant’s counsel’s “persistent health problems” contributed to his failure to serve timely responses. (Id. at p. 3:6-9.) After California’s restrictions begun to ease, Defendant’s counsel prepared and personally served discovery responses on June 23, 2020. (Id.)

In Reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s failure to provide responses is not the result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic because Defendant’s inaction and delay precede the Stay at Home Orders that went into effect on March 19, 2020. (Reply, p. 11-13.) Indeed, because Plaintiff propounded the discovery request on January 27, 2020, responses were due no later than March 2, 2020, which includes the extra five days allowed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. In addition, Defendant’s Opposition brief does not allege or demonstrate that it sought an extension from Plaintiff. Furthermore, because Defendant’s counsel only vaguely references “health problems” without providing any additional details, the Court cannot find this justifies the failure to provide timely responses.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendant’s counsel did not act with substantial justification in failing to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery request and the failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court may award sanctions pursuant to the Discovery Act in favor of a party that files a motion to compel responses even though the requested discovery is provided after the discovery motion is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $615.00 in sanctions, based on three hours of attorney time billed at $185.00 per hour plus one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Chun Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion. The Court finds $245.00, based on one hour of attorney time and one filing fee, to be reasonable.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Responses to Special Interrogatories is DENIED AS MOOT. However, Plaintiff’s request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $245.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC10436    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2031.300; 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents and (2) Motion for Order that Matters Contained within Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted are DENIED AS MOOT.

In addition, Plaintiff’s request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $305.00 to be paid 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 June 25, 2020 [X] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on June 25, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Ronald Podell (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On March 3, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Production Motion”) and (2) Motion for Order that Matters Contained within Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and for Sanctions (the “RFA Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

Defendant filed a late Opposition to the RFA Motion on June 25, 2020, and to the Production Motion on June 26, 2020. Plaintiff timely filed a Reply to both Opposition briefs on June 25, 2020.

  1. Legal Standard

A. Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (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.)

In addition, a party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom 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., § 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., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a); 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., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

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 failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Admissions, Set One, and Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents, Set One, on January 27, 2020 via regular mail. (Motions, Chun Decl., ¶ 3; Notices of Errata, Exhs. A.) Although not required, on March 13, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a letter regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Production Motion, Chun Decl., ¶ 4; RFA Motion, Chun Decl., ¶¶ 5-6; Notices of Errata, Exhs. B.)

Defendant filed two nearly identical Opposition briefs arguing that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on Defendant’s counsel’s law practice, his delay in responding to the discovery was justified. (Oppositions, p. 3:15-24; Shomloo Decl., ¶ 2.) Specifically, he argues that, out of fear of the virus, his only legal assistant cut her workdays from five to one, and her daily hours to only five. (Id.) In addition, he mentions in passing without providing any additional details that Defendant’s counsel’s “persistent health problems” contributed to his failure to serve timely responses. (Id. at p. 3:6-9.) After California’s restrictions begun to ease, Defendant’s counsel prepared and personally served discovery responses on June 23, 2020. (Id.)

In Reply, Plaintiff does not dispute it received responses to the discovery but argues that sanctions should be imposed because they are mandatory for failing to timely respond to the Request for Admissions. (RFA Reply, p. 2:10-24.) Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s failure to provide responses is not the result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic because Defendant’s inaction and delay precede the Stay at Home Orders that went into effect on March 19, 2020. (Production Reply, p. 2:16-18.) Specifically, because Plaintiff propounded the two sets of discovery requests on January 27, 2020, responses were due no later than March 2, 2020, including an extra five days for service by mail pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Defendant’s Opposition briefs do not allege or demonstrate that it sought an extension from Plaintiff on this basis. Furthermore, because Defendant’s counsel only vaguely references “health problems” without providing any additional details, the Court cannot find this justifies his failure to provide timely responses.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendant’s counsel did not act with substantial justification in failing to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and that his failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery process. Indeed, the Court may award sanctions pursuant to the Discovery Act in favor of a party that files a motion to compel responses even though the requested discovery is provided after the discovery motion is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $1,415.00 in sanctions, based on seven hours of attorney time billed at $185.00 per hour plus two filing fees of $60.00. (Production Motion, Chun Decl., ¶¶ 6-8; RFA Motion, Chun Decl., ¶¶8-9.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions. The Court finds $305.00 to be reasonable, based on one hour of attorney time and two filing fees.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents and (2) Motion for Order that Matters Contained within Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted are DENIED AS MOOT.

In addition, Plaintiff’s request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $305.00 to be paid 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 where INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CLUB is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHUN ARANG