This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/05/2020 at 04:08:30 (UTC).

JOSE MANZO VS THOMAS ANDERSON

Case Summary

On 05/29/2019 JOSE MANZO filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against THOMAS ANDERSON. 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:

    *******5144

  • Filing Date:

    05/29/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MANZO JOSE

Defendant

ANDERSON THOMAS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MEHRBAN MORSE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of the Trust and Status of Mr....)

3/2/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of the Trust and Status of Mr....)

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

3/4/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

2/20/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)

Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MORSE MEHRBAN

12/5/2019: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MORSE MEHRBAN

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

12/5/2019: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

11/12/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

9/24/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Answer - Answer

9/4/2019: Answer - Answer

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)) of 08/20/2019

8/20/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)) of 08/20/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

8/20/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) Motion to Strike/Demur Complaint for Damages Request for Judicial Notice

7/16/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) Motion to Strike/Demur Complaint for Damages Request for Judicial Notice

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

7/18/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

5/29/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

5/29/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

5/29/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/29/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

5/29/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

5/29/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Jose Manzo on 05/29/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Jose Manzo as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: Jose Manzo (Plaintiff); As to: Thomas Anderson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketAddress for Morse Mehrban (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 03/09/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/04/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 03/09/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/04/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/25/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/04/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/01/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/04/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of the Trust and Status of Mr....)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Status of the Trust and Status of Mr. Anderson as the Proper Litigant Being Sued scheduled for 03/02/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 03/02/2020; Result Type to Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 03/02/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 03/02/2020; Result Type to Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
34 More Docket Entries
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jose Manzo (Plaintiff); As to: Thomas Anderson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Jose Manzo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Jose Manzo (Plaintiff); As to: Thomas Anderson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jose Manzo (Plaintiff); As to: Thomas Anderson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/25/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC05144    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND INSPECTION DEMANDS; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jose Manzo’s Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s requests to Compel Defendant’s Answers to Form Interrogatories and Inspection Demands are DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $475.00, to be paid to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Manzo (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for damages for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On July 16, 2019, Defendant filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint with a Motion to Strike. On August 20, 2019, the Court overruled Defendant’s Demurrer and denied the Motion to Strike. (8/20/19 Minute Order.) On September 4, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (the “Interrogatories Motion”) and Motion to Compel Defendant’s Answers to Inspection Demands and Request for Sanctions (the “Inspection Demands Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

After hearing oral argument, the Court on January 30, 2020 continued the matter and set an Order to Show Cause re: Status of the Trust and Status of Defendant Anderson as the Proper Litigant Being Sued for March 2, 2020.

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

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Form Interrogatories and Inspection Demands

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 responses to Plaintiff’s Inspection Demands and Form Interrogatories on November 1, 2019. (See Motions to Compel Further Responses, Mehrban Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Indeed, on December 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Answers to Inspection Demands and Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Answers to Form Interrogatories Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests to compel Defendant to provide initial responses are DENIED AS MOOT.

  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).) In addition, the Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even if the requested discovery is provided to the moving party after a motion is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

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

Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $1,900.00 in sanctions, which consists of 4 hours of attorney time billed at $475.00 per hour. (Motions, Mehrban Decl., ¶ 5.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $475.00 based on one (1) hour of attorney time. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions with thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

III. Conclusion & Order

Plaintiff Jose Manzo’s Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s requests to Compel Defendant’s Answers to Form Interrogatories and Inspection Demands are DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $475.00, to be paid to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC05144    Hearing Date: February 20, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jose Manzo’s Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories is CONTINUED TO MARCH 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background & Discussion

On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Manzo (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for damages for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendant Thomas Anderson (“Defendant”). On September 4, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant’s Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions and Motion to Compel Defendant’s Answers to Inspection Demands and Request for Sanctions. On January 30, 2020, at the hearing for these motions, Defendant argued that the discovery requests should be directed at his trust, not at him individually. The Court continued the hearing on the discovery motions and set an Order to Show Cause to verify the status of the trust for Defendant and to verify the status of Defendant as the proper litigant being sued for March 2, 2020. (1/30/20 Minute Order.)

On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Answers to Interrogatories (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

In light of the order to show cause scheduled for March 2, 2020, the hearing on the instant Motion is continued to allow for the determination of the proper defendant in this action.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Jose Manzo’s Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories is CONTINUED TO MARCH 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC05144    Hearing Date: January 30, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND INSPECTION DEMANDS; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jose Manzo’s Motions are GRANTED. Verified responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories and the Inspection Demands are to be served within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $475.00, to be paid to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days.

I. Background

On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Manzo (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for damages for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On July 16, 2019, Defendant filed a Demurrer as to Plaintiff’s Complaint with a Motion to Strike. On August 20, 2019, the Court overruled Defendant’s Demurrer and denied the Motion to Strike. (8/20/19 Minute Order.) On September 4, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant’s Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (the “Interrogatories Motion”) and Motion to Compel Defendant’s Answers to Inspection Demands and Request for Sanctions (the “Inspection Demands Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Answers to Inspection Demands and Request for Sanctions (the “Motion to Compel Further Responses”). This motion is scheduled for hearing on February 20, 2020.

To date, no opposition or reply briefs to the instant Motions have been filed.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Form Interrogatories and Inspection Demands

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.)

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Motion and Inspection Demands Motion are timely as they were filed before the November 10, 2020 cut-off for discovery motions. Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories and Inspection Demands on September 17, 2019. (Motions, Mehrban Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff had not received any verified responses to the Interrogatories or Inspection Demands. (Id., ¶ 4.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to serve responses without objections to the Plaintiff’s Inspection Demands.

The Court notes that Defendant served Plaintiff Interrogatories responses on November 20, 2019, which explicitly refused to provide requested information, and which failed to answer one interrogatory entirely. (See Motion to Compel Further Responses, Mehrban Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Although Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, his untimely responses do not deprive the Court of the authority to hear the instant Interrogatories Motion. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) Indeed, the trial court, in its discretion, can compel responses without objection if it finds that no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories. (Ibid.) (Italics added.) Here, Defendant provided untimely and incomplete answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories. (See Motion to Compel Further Responses, Mehrban Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Thus, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendant to serve responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories.

  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).) In addition, the Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even if the requested discovery is provided to the moving party after a motion is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Inspection Demands and his untimely and incomplete responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories a misuse of the discovery process.

Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $1,900.00 in sanctions, which consists of 4 hours of attorney time billed at $475.00 per hour. (Motions, Mehrban Decl., ¶ 5.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $475.00 based on one (1) hour of attorney time. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions with thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Jose Manzo’s Motions are GRANTED. Verified responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories and the Inspection Demands are to be served within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $475.00, to be paid to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.