This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/28/2019 at 00:53:34 (UTC).

JOSE FLORES VS TONYA RAVEN

Case Summary

On 06/27/2018 JOSE FLORES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against TONYA RAVEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9165

  • Filing Date:

    06/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FLORES JOSE

Defendant

RAVEN TONYA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

WILLOUGHBY ANTHONY

Defendant Attorney

MARKARIAN LOUISA

 

Court Documents

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES; DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARK

11/22/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES; DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARK

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: FORM INTERROGATORIES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARKARIAN

11/22/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: FORM INTERROGATORIES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARKARIAN

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER THAT THE TRUTH OF ANY MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION BE DEEMED ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDU

11/22/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER THAT THE TRUTH OF ANY MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION BE DEEMED ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDU

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application DEFENDANT TONYA RAVENS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARKARIAN; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUBMITTED CONCURRENTL

11/26/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application DEFENDANT TONYA RAVENS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARKARIAN; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUBMITTED CONCURRENTL

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application DEFENDANT TONYA RAVENS EX PA...)

11/27/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application DEFENDANT TONYA RAVENS EX PA...)

Order (name extension) - Order DEFENDANT TONYA RAVENS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARKARIAN; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUBMITTED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH

11/27/2019: Order (name extension) - Order DEFENDANT TONYA RAVENS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARKARIAN; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUBMITTED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

11/19/2018: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Related Case

10/25/2018: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Related Case

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

9/4/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Answer

9/4/2018: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

9/4/2018: Demand for Jury Trial

Summons - on Complaint

6/27/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/27/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

6/27/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6/27/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/30/2021
  • Hearing06/30/2021 at 10:30 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
  • 05/22/2020
  • Hearing05/22/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • Hearing02/18/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • Hearing02/18/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • Hearing02/18/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Ex Parte Application DEFENDANT TONYA RAVEN?S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARKARIAN; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUBMITTED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH: Result Date: blank; As To Parties changed from Jose Flores (Plaintiff) to Jose Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Ex Parte Application DEFENDANT TONYA RAVEN?S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARKARIAN; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUBMITTED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH: Filed By: Tonya Raven (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 11/27/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/22/2020 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketOrder DEFENDANT TONYA RAVEN?S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOUISA MARKARIAN; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUBMITTED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH; Signed and Filed by: Tonya Raven (Defendant); As to: Jose Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application DEFENDANT TONYA RAVEN?S EX PA...)

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 09/04/2018
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Tonya Raven (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by: Tonya Raven (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/26/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jose Flores (Plaintiff); As to: Tonya Raven (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jose Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC09165    Hearing Date: February 18, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Tonya Raven’s (1) Motion for Order that the Truth of Any Matters Specified in Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted, (2) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, and (3) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objections to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $300.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 27, 2018, Plaintiff Jose Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Tonya Raven (“Defendant”). On September 4, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer. On November 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney form indicating he would be representing himself moving forward.

On November 22, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Order that the Truth of Any Matters Specified in Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted and Request for Sanctions (the “RFA Motion”), Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Demand for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions (the “Production of Documents Motion”), and Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (the “Interrogatories Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

  1. 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).) “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.)

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admissions, Set One, on June 20, 2019 by mail. (RFA Mot., Markarian Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defense counsel states she contacted Plaintiff by telephone regarding the lack of responses, but it is unclear when she did so. (Id. at ¶ 5.) During this conversation, Plaintiff indicated he believed his file had been closed. (Id.) Defense counsel tried to inform him this was not the case, but Plaintiff remained firm in his position. (Id.) To date, Defendant has not received any responses from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

  1. Form Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents

A party must respond to form 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 Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set one, on June 20, 2019. (Interrogatories & Production of Documents Mot., Markarian Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) As noted above, Defendant attempted to meet and confer regarding the lack of responses to the discovery requests, but Plaintiff remained firm in his position that his former attorney “closed his file.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) To date, Defendant has not received any responses to the Form Interrogatories or Request for Production of Documents. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 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 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).)

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to take action despite being warned by Defendant that this matter remains active, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Form Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction for failing to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Defendant’s counsel requests a total of $1,500.00 in sanctions, which includes fifteen hours of attorney time billed at $100.00 per hour. (Motions, Markarian Decl., ¶ 9.) Counsel does not seek to recover costs. However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Defendant’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the reduced amount of $300.00 based on three hours of attorney time. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Tonya Raven’s (1) Motion for Order that the Truth of Any Matters Specified in Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted, (2) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, and (3) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objections to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $300.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.