This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/26/2021 at 02:02:00 (UTC).

JORGE FLORES VS CAGE FREE K9 CAMP

Case Summary

On 02/24/2020 JORGE FLORES filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against CAGE FREE K9 CAMP. 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 Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1817

  • Filing Date:

    02/24/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FLORES JORGE

Defendants and Cross Defendants

CAGE FREE K9 CAMP A BUSINESS FORM UNKNOWN

ABRAMS DANIEL CO TRUST A BUSINESS FORM UNKNOWN

WINTER JILL DAVIDSON

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

ABRAMS DANIEL CO TRUST A BUSINESS FORM UNKNOWN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

ANNIGIAN JASON DAVID

SHAFRON MARK

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

SHAFRON MARK

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Dismissal

8/23/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Dismissal

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

8/18/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Hearing on Motio...)

8/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Hearing on Motio...)

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

2/8/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

12/8/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

11/10/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 11/10/2020

11/10/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 11/10/2020

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Motion

10/21/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Motion

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 08/06/2020

8/6/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 08/06/2020

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

8/7/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

7/28/2020: Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

Answer - Answer

5/20/2020: Answer - Answer

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/24/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

3/24/2020: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

2/24/2020: Complaint - Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

2/24/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/24/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

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

2/25/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketNotice of Dismissal; Filed by: Cage Free K9 Camp, a business form unknown (Defendant); As to: Jorge Flores (Plaintiff); Cage Free K9 Camp, a business form unknown (Defendant); Daniel Abrams Erroneously Sued As Abrams Daniel Co trust, a business form unknown (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Jorge Flores on 02/24/2020, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to Cage Free K9 Camp, a business form unknown

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Order - Dismissal: Result: Vacated; Result Date: 08/23/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketDismissal entered on 08/23/2021, is Vacated - Clerical Error.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by: Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Jorge Flores on 02/24/2020, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/23/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/27/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/23/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 77 with DismissalParty:2421206 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
51 More Docket Entries
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Jorge Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/27/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jorge Flores (Plaintiff); As to: Cage Free K9 Camp, a business form unknown (Defendant); Abrams Daniel Co trust, a business form unknown (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Jorge Flores (Plaintiff); As to: Cage Free K9 Camp, a business form unknown (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jorge Flores (Plaintiff); As to: Cage Free K9 Camp, a business form unknown (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Jorge Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC01817 Hearing Date: August 2, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nFOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (x2)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nDaniel Abrams, erroneously sued as Abrams Daniel Co. Trust

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2023.030)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Daniel Abrams’ Motions for Terminating\r\nSanctions are GRANTED. The Complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED AS TO DEFENDANT DANIEL\r\nABRAMS WITH PREJUDICE. However, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is\r\nDENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 28,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof July 28, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On February 24, 2020, self-represented Plaintiff Jorge\r\nFlores (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Cagefree K9 Camp, LLC,\r\nerroneously sued as Cage Free K9 Camp (“Cage Free”) and Daniel Abrams,\r\nerroneously sued as Abrams Daniel Co. Trust (“Abrams”) (collectively,\r\n“Defendants”). Defendant Abrams filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint on March\r\n24, 2020. Defendant Cage Free filed its Answer on March 26, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Abrams filed the instant (1) Motion for\r\nTerminating Sanctions as Against Plaintiff for Failing to Respond to Form\r\nInterrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions and (2) Motion for Terminating\r\nSanctions as Against Plaintiff for Failing to Respond to Request for Production\r\nand for Monetary Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). No opposition was\r\nfiled.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Where a party willfully\r\ndisobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating,\r\nissue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd.\r\n(g), 2025.450, subd. (h); R.S. Creative,\r\nInc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) An evidence sanction prohibits a party that\r\nmisused the discovery process from introducing evidence on certain designated\r\nmatters into evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).) Ultimate discovery\r\nsanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a\r\nhistory of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not\r\nproduce compliance with discovery rules. \r\n(Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011)\r\n196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A]\r\npenalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance\r\nwith discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or\r\nbad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) The court may impose a terminating sanction\r\nby one of the following orders:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(1) An\r\norder striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party\r\nengaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

\r\n\r\n

(2) An\r\norder staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is\r\nobeyed.

\r\n\r\n

(3) An\r\norder dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

\r\n\r\n

(4) An\r\norder rendering a judgment by default against that party.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant Abrams seeks a terminating sanction due\r\nto Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery requests. (Motions, pp. 2.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Abrams served Plaintiff with Form\r\nInterrogatories, Set One, on March 25, 2020, and a Request for Production, Set\r\nOne, on March 30, 2020. (Motions, Shafron Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exh. A.) Following\r\nPlaintiff’s failure to respond, Defendant Abrams filed motions to compel\r\nresponses to the discovery on May 20, 2020. Plaintiff did not file an\r\nopposition or appear at the December 8, 2020 hearing on the discovery motions.\r\n(12/8/20 Minute Order.) The Court granted the discovery motions and ordered\r\nPlaintiff to serve verified responses without objections and pay sanctions of\r\n$700.00 within thirty (30) days of notice of the order. (Id.) Defendant\r\nAbrams filed a notice of ruling demonstrating he gave Plaintiff notice of the\r\nCourt’s December 8 order that same day via regular mail. (12/8/20 Notice of\r\nRuling.) On January 19, 2021, Defendant Abrams’ counsel sent a follow-up letter\r\nregarding the order to compel responses and pay sanctions via regular mail.\r\n(Motions, Shafron Decl., ¶¶ 7, Exhs. D.) As of the date these Motions were\r\nfiled, Plaintiff had not served verified responses or paid monetary sanctions.\r\n(Id. at ¶¶ 8.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds terminating sanctions are warranted.\r\nAlthough a terminating sanction is a harsh penalty, the evidence demonstrates\r\nPlaintiff’s compliance cannot be achieved through lesser means. Notably,\r\nPlaintiff was properly served with this Motion but did not oppose it. Indeed, it\r\nappears that Plaintiff is no longer interested in prosecuting his action.\r\nHowever, Defendant Abrams’ request for monetary sanctions is denied as such an\r\naward would be futile.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Daniel Abrams’ Motions for\r\nTerminating Sanctions are GRANTED. The Complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED AS TO\r\nDEFENDANT DANIEL ABRAMS WITH PREJUDICE. However, Defendant’s request for\r\nmonetary sanctions is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

\r\n\r\n

'

Case Number: 20STLC01817    Hearing Date: February 08, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., February 8, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Flores v. Cage Free K6 Camp, et al. COMPL. FILED: 02-24-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC01817 DISC. C/O: 07-24-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 08-08-21

TRIAL DATE: 08-23-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Cage Free K9 Camp

RESP. PARTY: None

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

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Cage Free K9 Camp’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is DENIED.

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: None filed as of February 4, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 4, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff Jorge Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed an action, in pro per, against Cage Free K9 Camp (“Cage Free”) and Daniel Abrams, erroneously sued as Abrams Daniel Co. Trust (“Abrams”) for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant Abrams filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint on March 24, 2020. Defendant Cage Free filed an Answer to the Complaint on March 26, 2020 and an Answer to the Cross-Complaint on May 18, 2020.

Defendant Cage Free filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories and (2) Requests for Production of Documents and (3) to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition was filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or 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., § 2030.290, subd. (b); 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., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; 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., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Similarly, 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.)

First, the Court notes Defendant Cage Free filed three requests for relief as a single Motion. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Defendant Cage Free paid only one filing fee for what should have been three separate motions.

More importantly, the propounded discovery exceeds what is permitted in limited civil actions. Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 94 provides that a propounding party may serve any combination of 35 interrogatories, demands to produce documents, and requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., subd. (a)(1)-(3).) Here, Defendant Cage Free propounded 44 interrogatories, 23 Requests for Production, and 52 Requests for Admission. (Mot., Annigan Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Cage Free K9 Camp’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC01817    Hearing Date: December 08, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., December 8, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Flores v. Cage Free K9 Camp, et al. COMPL. FILED: 02-24-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC01817 DISC. C/O: 07-24-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 08-08-21

TRIAL DATE: 08-23-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Daniel Abrams erroneously sued as Abrams Daniel Co. Trust

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Daniel Abrams’ (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production, Set One, are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant Abrams’ discovery requests within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant Abrams’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $420.00 to be paid to Defendant Abrams’ counsel 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: None filed as of December 4, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 4, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background & Discussion

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff Jorge Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed an action, in pro per, against Cage Free K9 Camp (“Cage Free”) and Daniel Abrams, erroneously sued as Abrams Daniel Co. Trust (“Abrams”) for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant Abrams filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint on March 24, 2020 and Defendant Cage Free filed its Answer on March 26, 2020.

On May 20, 2020, Defendant Abrams filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories and for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production and for an Award of Attorney’s Fees (collectively, the “Motions”). On August 6, 2020, the Court scheduled the Motions for hearing for October 21, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. and ordered Defendant Abrams to give notice. (8/6/20 Minute Order.)

At the initial October 21, 2020 hearing, the Court found that Defendant Abrams was entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery requests. (10/21/20 Minute Order.) The Court also found that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant Abrams’ discovery requests was a misuse of the discovery process and that sanctions of $420.00, based on one hour of attorney time and two filing fees, were reasonable. (Id.) However, the Court noted that the Motions were noticed for an incorrect date and that the Court’s August 6 Order scheduling the Motions for hearing was improperly served via email on a self-represented litigant. (10/21/20 Minute Order.) The hearing was continued and Defendant Abrams was ordered to give proper notice of the next scheduled hearing. (Id.)

That same day, Defendant Abrams served a Notice of Continuance on Plaintiff via regular mail. (10/21/20 Notice of Continuance.) The Court continued the matter once more on its own motion to December 8, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (11/10/20 Minute Order.) Defendant Abrams served a copy of this order on Plaintiff via regular mail on November 13, 2020. (11/13/20 Proof of Service.)

As Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, and as Defendant Abrams has now given Plaintiff proper notice of this hearing, the unopposed Motions are GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Daniel Abrams’ (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production, Set One, are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant Abrams’ discovery requests within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant Abrams’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $420.00 to be paid to Defendant Abrams’ counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC01817    Hearing Date: October 21, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., October 21, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Flores v. Cage Free K9 Camp, et al. COMPL. FILED: 02-24-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC01817 DISC. C/O: 07-24-21

NOTICE: NO (continued hearing) DISC. MOT. C/O: 08-08-21

TRIAL DATE: 08-23-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Daniel Abrams erroneously sued as Abrams Daniel Co. Trust

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Daniel Abrams’ (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production, Set One, are CONTINUED TO NOV 16 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant Abrams must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motions being placed off calendar or denied.

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: None filed as of October 19, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 19, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff Jorge Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed an action, in pro per, against Cage Free K9 Camp (“Cage Free”) and Daniel Abrams, erroneously sued as Abrams Daniel Co. Trust (“Abrams”) for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant Abrams filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint on March 24, 2020 and Defendant Cage Free filed its Answer on March 26, 2020.

On May 20, 2020, Defendant Abrams filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories and for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production and for an Award of Attorney’s Fees (collectively, the “Motions”).

To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or 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., § 2030.290, subd. (b); 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., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; 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., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Defendant Abrams served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One, on March 25, 2020 and with Request for Production, Set One, on March 30, 2020 via regular mail. (Motions, Shafron Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exhs. A.) Following Plaintiff’s failure to respond, Defendant Abrams’ counsel sent Plaintiff a letter regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4, Exhs. B.) As of the date of these Motions, Defendant Abrams has not received any responses to the discovery requests. (Id.) Thus, Defendant Abrams is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the discovery requests without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

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

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant Abrams’ discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant Abrams seeks a total of $3,720.00 based on 12 hours of attorney time billed at $300.00 per hour and two filing fees of $60.00. (Motions, Shafron Decl., ¶¶ 5.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical motions and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $420.00, based on one hour of attorney time and two fling fees, to be reasonable.

  1. Notice of Continued Hearing

Although the Court is inclined to grant the Motions and requests for sanctions, the Court notes that Defendant Abrams incorrectly noticed the Motions for August 12, 2020. In addition, Defendant Abrams sent notice of the Court’s August 6, 2020 Minute Order scheduling the Motions for hearing to Plaintiff via email to jorge0206flores@gmail.com. (8/7/20 Proof of Electronic Service.) However, self-represented litigants cannot be served electronically unless they file and serve a notice with the Court expressly consenting to accept electronic service. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251, subd. (b); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (d)(4).) Plaintiff has not done so here.

For this reason, the Court cannot find Plaintiff was given proper notice of the scheduled hearings. Accordingly, Defendant Abrams is ordered to give notice of this continued hearing.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Daniel Abrams’ (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production, Set One, are CONTINUED TO NOV 16 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant Abrams must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motions being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAFRON MARK