JOSE ANTONIO CORDOVA, ET AL. VS NORYLIE AGUILAR DESALESA

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC10669    Hearing Date: December 07, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., December 7, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Cordova v. Desalesa COMPL. FILED: 08-14-18

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC10669 DISC. C/O: 06-07-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF RUMALDO CASTILLO TO ANSWER FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF RUMALDO CASTILLO TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Norylie Desalesa

RESP. PARTY: None

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

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Norylie Desalesa’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Rumaldo Castillo to Answer Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Rumaldo Castillo to Respond to Request or Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions are CONTINUED TO JAN 28, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file supplemental papers demonstrating he gave adequate notice of this hearing to Plaintiff Castillo. Defendant is also ordered to pay one additional filing fee.

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 2, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 2, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On August 14, 2018, Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Cordova Mendoza (“Mendoza”) and Ernesto Montoya (“Montoya”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Norylie Aguilar Desalesa (“Defendant”). A First Amended Complaint was filed on November 2, 2019, adding Rumaldo Castillo (“Castillo”) as a Plaintiff. Defendant filed an Answer on February 11, 2020.

On May 15, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Rumaldo Castillo to Answer Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (the “Interrogatories Motion”) and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Rumaldo Castillo to Respond to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (the “Production Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

On October 23, 2020, the Court set the Motions for hearing for December 7, 2020 and ordered Defendant to give Plaintiffs notice. (10/23/20 Minute Order.) To date, Defendant has not filed a proof of service demonstrating Plaintiffs were given notice of this hearing. In addition, Plaintiff Castillo has not filed an opposition.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

1. Interrogatories and Request 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.)

Here, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production on February 11, 2020 via regular mail. (Motions, Alvarez Decl., ¶¶ 3, Exhs. A.) Defendant’s counsel emailed a letter to Plaintiff Castillo’s counsel on April 3, 2020 regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, Exhs. B.) As of the date of these Motions, Plaintiff Castillo did not serve any responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff Castillo to provide verified responses 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 Castillo’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel seeks a total of $923.30, based on 4 hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour and two filing fees of $61.65. (Motions, Alvarez Decl., ¶¶ 7.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical motions and lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $523.30, based on two hours of attorney time and two filing fees, to be reasonable.

1. Notice and Filing Fees

Although the Court is inclined to grant the Motions, Defendant did not file a proof of service demonstrating he gave Plaintiff Castillo notice of the Court’s October 23^rd Order scheduling these Motions for hearing.

In addition, Defendant’s Interrogatories Motion impermissibly attempts to combine multiple requests for relief into a single motion. Specifically, it seeks to compel responses to both Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. Filing multiple requests for relief 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. In addition, combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite number of 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 has only paid one filing fee for what should have been two separate motions. Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to pay one additional filing fee prior to the next scheduled hearing.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Norylie Desalesa’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Rumaldo Castillo to Answer Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Rumaldo Castillo to Respond to Request or Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions are CONTINUED TO JAN 28, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file supplemental papers demonstrating he gave adequate notice of this hearing to Plaintiff Castillo. Defendant is also ordered to pay one additional filing fee.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC10669    Hearing Date: February 03, 2020    Dept: 25

DEMURRER

(CCP § 431.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Norylie Desalesa Aguilar’s Demurrer to the Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

I. Background

On August 14, 2018, Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Cordova Mendoza (“Cordova”) and Ernesto Montoya (“Montoya”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Norylie Aguilar Desalesa (“Defendant”). On October 18, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer.

On May 3, 2019, Cordova and Montoya filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (“Motion for Leave”), seeking to add Rumaldo Castillo (“Castillo”) as a plaintiff to this action. The Motion for Leave was initially heard on July 31, 2019, where Defendant argued in opposition that Castillo’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. (7/31/2019 Minute Order.) The Court rejected Defendant’s arguments and noted the statute of limitations issue was a matter to be raised by demurrer but continued the hearing for that Motion for Leave to allow for the correction of procedural defects. (Id.). On October 2, 2019, the Court granted Cordova and Montoya’s Motion for Leave. (Id.)

On November 20, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

On December 6, 2019, Defendant filed a Demurrer to Amended Complaint (the “Demurrer”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

II. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

III. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Demurrer accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Parsanj Decl., ¶ 2-3.)

The vehicle accident underlying this action occurred on August 25, 2016. (FAC., p. 4, ¶ MV-1.) Plaintiff Castillo was not added as a plaintiff until November 20, 2019. Defendant contends that, because Castillo was added to this action after the statute of limitations for personal injury had run, the entire FAC is subject to demurrer on the basis that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Demurrer, p. 4.) Defendant is correct that the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is 2 years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.) However, Defendant’s argument overlooks the relation-back doctrine.

“An amended complaint is considered a new action for purposes of the statute of limitations only if the claims do not ‘relate back’ to an earlier, timely-filed complaint.” (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 276.) For the relation-back doctrine to apply, the amended complaint must (1) be based on the same general set of facts, (2) involve the same injury, and (3) refer to the same incident or instrumentality as the original complaint. (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 408.) “When there is an attempt to add a party after the statute of limitations has run, however, relation back to the original pleadings ‘is dependent upon whether recovery is sought on the same general set of facts as those [originally] alleged. [Citation.]” (Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 160.) (Emphasis in original.) Indeed, “when recovery is sought on the same basic set of facts, the main policy of the statute of limitations, to put defendants on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare a fair defense on the merits, is satisfied.” (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff Castillo alleges injuries based on the same general set of facts and refers to the same incident as what was alleged in Cordova’s and Montoya’s original complaint, i.e., the August 25, 2016 vehicle accident. (FAC, p. 4, ¶ MV-1, and p. 5, ¶ GN-1.) Thus, although Castillo was added as a plaintiff after the statute of limitations for personal injury had run, the FAC is not time-barred because the relation-back doctrine applies.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Norylie Desalesa Aguilar’s Demurrer to the Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.