This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 07:02:28 (UTC).

KAREN LUU VS CARMEN RANGEL, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/17/2019 KAREN LUU filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CARMEN RANGEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street 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:

    *******0642

  • Filing Date:

    01/17/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LUU KAREN

Defendants

FLORES JUAN DE JESUS

RANGEL CARMEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FOSS JOHN B

Defendant Attorney

ALBAN ARNOLD J

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Attorney

10/19/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Attorney

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

10/2/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT CARMEN RANGEL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF KAREN LUU'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE A FURTHER RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET

9/10/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT CARMEN RANGEL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF KAREN LUU'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE A FURTHER RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant To Provide a Further Response to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and Request for Monetary Sanctions

7/31/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant To Provide a Further Response to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

1/6/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

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

1/21/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

6/2/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 06/02/2020

6/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 06/02/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motion to Compel Defendant Carmen Rangel to p...)

7/8/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motion to Compel Defendant Carmen Rangel to p...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motion to Compel Defendant Carmen Rangel to p...) of 07/08/2020

7/8/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motion to Compel Defendant Carmen Rangel to p...) of 07/08/2020

Answer - Answer to Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

3/18/2019: Answer - Answer to Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

Subpoena & Proof of Service - Subpoena & Proof of Service

2/15/2019: Subpoena & Proof of Service - Subpoena & Proof of Service

Subpoena & Proof of Service - Subpoena & Proof of Service

2/15/2019: Subpoena & Proof of Service - Subpoena & Proof of Service

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

1/17/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

1/17/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/17/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

1/17/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/17/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/20/2022
  • Hearing01/20/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • Hearing03/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • Hearing11/10/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Attorney; Filed by: Karen Luu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Karen Luu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Defendant Carmen Rangel to provide Further Response to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories scheduled for 11/10/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant Carmen Rangel to provid...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant Carmen Rangel to provide Further Response to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories scheduled for 09/22/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 11/10/2020 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketOpposition DEFENDANT CARMEN RANGEL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF KAREN LUU'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE A FURTHER RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; Filed by: Carmen Rangel (Defendant); Juan De Jesus Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketNotice of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant To Provide a Further Response to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories (Set Two) and Request for Monetary Sanctions; Filed by: Karen Luu (Plaintiff); As to: Carmen Rangel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
17 More Docket Entries
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/16/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Karen Luu (Plaintiff); As to: Carmen Rangel (Defendant); Juan De Jesus Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Karen Luu (Plaintiff); As to: Carmen Rangel (Defendant); Juan De Jesus Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Karen Luu (Plaintiff); As to: Carmen Rangel (Defendant); Juan De Jesus Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Karen Luu (Plaintiff); As to: Carmen Rangel (Defendant); Juan De Jesus Flores (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC00642    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., September 22, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Luu v. Rangel, et al. COMPL. FILED: 01-17-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC00642 DISC. C/O: 02-16-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 03-03-21

TRIAL DATE: 03-18-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT CARMEN RANGEL TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Karen Luu

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Carmen Rangel and Juan de Jesus Flores

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Karen Luu’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, is CONTINUED TO NOV 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

In addition, Defendants’ request for sanctions due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to meet and confer is GRANTED in the amount of $900.00 to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within thirty (30) days of service 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 September 10, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 18, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On January 17, 2019, Plaintiff Karen Luu (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Carmen Rangel (“Rangel”) and Juan de Jesus Flores (“Flores”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On March 18, 2019, Defendants filed a joint Answer.

On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Carmen Rangel to Provide Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). Defendants filed an Opposition on September 10, 2020. No reply brief has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . . “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

  1. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 116.2, 116.3, 116.4, and 116.5. (Mot., p. 4:15-21.)

Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories, Set Two, to Defendant Rangel on April 13, 2020. (Mot., Dunham Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Defendants’ counsel provided initial responses on June 1, 2020. (Id., Exh. 2.) On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter explaining why he believed the June 1st responses were incomplete and non-responsive. (Id., Exh. ¶ 3.) Defendants’ counsel provided supplemental responses on June 8, 2020. (Id., Exh. 4.)

As the Opposition points out, Plaintiff’s counsel did not attempt to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel regarding the June 8th supplemental responses before filing this Motion. (Oppo., Moskovian Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6.) As noted above, a party is required to meet and confer in good faith before filing a motion to compel further responses. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel and file and serve a declaration attesting to such efforts at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.

A. Defendants’ Request for Sanctions

Defendants’ counsel requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions on Plaintiff for failure to meaningfully meet and confer before filing this Motion. (Oppo., p. 9:13-25.) 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 meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., ¶ 2023.010, subd. (i).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel a misuse of the discovery process. Furthermore, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.020 provides that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction ordering that any party who fails to meet and confer as required pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Italics added.)

Defendants’ counsel requests a total of $1,800.00 in sanctions, based on four hours of attorney time billed at $450.00 per hour. (Oppo., Moskovian Decl., ¶ 11.) However, the amount sought is excessive. The Court finds sanctions of $900.00, based on two hours of attorney time, to be reasonable. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Karen Luu’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, is CONTINUED TO NOV 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

In addition, Defendants’ request for sanctions due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to meet and confer is GRANTED in the amount of $900.00 to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC00642    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORES

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Flores is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s discovery within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $360.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On January 17, 2019, Plaintiff Karen Luu (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Carmen Rangel (“Rangel”) and Juan De Jesus Flores (“Flores”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On March 18, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer.

On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Juan De Jesus Flores to Provide a Verified Response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Form Interrogatories

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.) 

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant Flores with Form Interrogatories, Set Two, on August 12, 2019. (Mot., Dunham Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) Although not required, on November 11, 2019, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer via letter with Defendant Flores regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) To date, Plaintiff has not received responses to her discovery request. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant Flores to serve verified responses to the discovery without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

  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).)

The Court finds Defendant Flores’ failure to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories a misuse of the discovery process.

Plaintiff’s counsel requests sanctions of $1,110.00, which include 3.5 hours of attorney time billed at $300.00 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Dunham Decl., ¶ 10.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of the instant Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $360.00 based on one hour of attorney time and one filing fee of $60.00. Defendant Flores is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Flores is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s discovery within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $360.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.