This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/19/2021 at 00:15:12 (UTC).

NATALIE HERNANDEZ VS JULIO GARCIA PEREZ

Case Summary

On 01/21/2020 NATALIE HERNANDEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JULIO GARCIA PEREZ. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0621

  • Filing Date:

    01/21/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Defendants

HERNANDEZ NATALIE

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

GARCIA PEREZ JULIO

DOES 1 - 50 INCLUSIVE

DENKOVSKI VIDE

BROWN QUINCY

ALLIANCE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

KRAMER JEFFREY

MEYER-MORRIS DEBORAH

DAVIS VINCENT WALTER

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition of Pl...) of 09/28/2021

9/28/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition of Pl...) of 09/28/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition of Pl...)

9/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition of Pl...)

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTIONAND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF & SANCTIONSIN THE AMOUNT OF $1,469.50, AGAINST NATALIE HERNANDEZ; OR IN THE

8/26/2021: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTIONAND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF & SANCTIONSIN THE AMOUNT OF $1,469.50, AGAINST NATALIE HERNANDEZ; OR IN THE

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

7/28/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Answer - Answer

7/28/2020: Answer - Answer

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

7/30/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/31/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

8/6/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Answer - Answer amended answer

8/6/2020: Answer - Answer amended answer

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

11/23/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

11/30/2020: Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

12/18/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 12/18/2020

12/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 12/18/2020

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

12/29/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order CONTINUING TRIAL;[PROPOSED] ORDER

4/1/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order CONTINUING TRIAL;[PROPOSED] ORDER

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

4/7/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

Motion to Consolidate - Motion to Consolidate

4/14/2021: Motion to Consolidate - Motion to Consolidate

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Consolidate)

5/17/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Consolidate)

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/24/2023
  • Hearing01/24/2023 at 08:30 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
  • 11/18/2021
  • Hearing11/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition of Pl...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition of Pl...) of 09/28/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Natalie Hernandez scheduled for 09/28/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/28/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Natalie Hernandez scheduled for 09/28/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2021
  • DocketMotion to Compel DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTIONAND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF & SANCTIONSIN THE AMOUNT OF $1,469.50, AGAINST NATALIE HERNANDEZ; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TERMINATING SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF DEBORAH MEYER- MORRIS IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED; Filed by: Julio Garcia Perez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Compel DEFENDANT?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT?S ORDERS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF scheduled for 07/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 07/15/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel DEFENDANT?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT?S ORDERS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF scheduled for 07/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Consolidate: Filed By: Julio Garcia Perez (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 06/17/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
43 More Docket Entries
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Court Fees: Filed By: Natalie Hernandez (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 01/22/2020; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/24/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) Denied; Filed by: Clerk; As to: Natalie Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Natalie Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Julio Garcia Perez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Natalie Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Julio Garcia Perez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Natalie Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC00621 Hearing Date: September 28, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF AND FOR SANCTIONS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR\r\nTERMINATING SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nJulio Garcia Perez

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2025.450)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Julio Garcia Perez’s Motion\r\nto Compel Deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff Natalie Hernandez is ordered to\r\nappear for deposition at a date and time to be noticed by Defendant Perez. At\r\neither party’s election, the deposition may take place remotely as provided by\r\nCode of Civil Procedure section 2025.310. Furthermore, Defendant Perez’s\r\nrequest for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $474.15 to be paid within\r\nthirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\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 September\r\n24, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 24, 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\r\n

On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff Natalie\r\nHernandez (“Hernandez”) filed this action alleging motor vehicle negligence and\r\ngeneral negligence against Defendant Julio Garcia Perez (“Perez”). Perez filed\r\nan Answer, in pro per, on July 28, 2020. On August 6, 2020, Perez filed an\r\nAmended Answer and a substitution of attorney.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Perez filed a Notice of\r\nRelated Case on November 30, 2020 seeking to relate this action to Everest\r\nNational Insurance Co. v. Hernandez, et al., Case No. 20STLC09390 (the\r\n“Interpleader Case”). The Interpleader Case was filed on November 5, 2020\r\nagainst Hernandez, Vide Denkovski (“Denkovski”), Quincy Brown (“Brown”), and\r\nAlliance United Insurance Company (“Alliance United”). On December 8, 2020, the\r\nCourt found this case and the Interpleader Case related within the meaning of\r\nCalifornia Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subdivision (a), and designated this\r\ncase as the “lead case.” (12/18/20 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Quincy was dismissed from the\r\nInterpleader Action on January 8, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 14, 2021, Defendant Perez\r\nfiled a motion to consolidate this case with the Interpleader Case, which was\r\ngranted on June 17. (6/17/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant filed the instant Motion to\r\nCompel Deposition of Plaintiff and for Monetary Sanctions or, in the\r\nAlternative, for Terminating Sanctions (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a)\r\nprovides:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an\r\nofficer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person\r\ndesignated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without\r\nhaving served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for\r\nexamination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document,\r\nelectronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the\r\ndeposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling\r\nthe deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of\r\nany document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in\r\nthe deposition notice.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) (Emphasis\r\nadded.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The motion must “be accompanied by a meet and confer\r\ndeclaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the\r\ndeposition…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the\r\ndeponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450,\r\nsubd. (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is\r\ngranted unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial\r\njustification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction\r\nunjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant Perez served Plaintiff’s counsel with a notice\r\nof an in-person deposition on February 23, 2021 via email and regular mail.\r\n(Mot., Meyer-Morris Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. C.) The deposition was initially noticed\r\nfor March 17. (Id.) On March 9, 2021, Defendant Perez’s counsel sent\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel an amended notice of deposition for the same date but at a\r\ndifferent location. (Id, at ¶ 5, Exh. D.) Defendant Perez’s counsel\r\nreceived no objections. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Perez’s counsel’s legal assistant sent\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel emails on March 12 and March 16 in an attempt to confirm\r\nPlaintiff’s March 17 deposition, to which Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond.\r\n(Id. at ¶¶ 7-8, Exh. E.). On March 16, Defendant’s counsel also wrote to\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel regarding the March 17 deposition. (Id.) Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel stated both the firm and the client were not available for deposition\r\nuntil July 20, 2021. (Id.) Notably, the trial date in this action was initially\r\nset for July 20, 2021. On April 14, Defendant’s counsel’s office requested\r\navailable alternative dates for Plaintiff’s deposition but received no\r\nresponse. (Id. at ¶ 9, Exh. F.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 13, while communicating regarding a separate\r\nmatter, Defendant Perez’s counsel reminded Plaintiff’s counsel that a date was\r\nstill needed for Plaintiff’s deposition. (Id. at ¶ 17, Exh. K.) On July\r\n16, Defendant’s counsel advised Plaintiff’s counsel she would unilaterally set\r\nPlaintiff’s deposition as efforts to obtain a mutually agreeable date had been\r\nignored since 2021. (Id. at ¶ 18, Exh. L.) There was no response to this\r\nlast effort to meet and confer regarding an agreeable date. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Perez’s counsel served an\r\namended notice of deposition on July 16, 2021 via email and regular mail. (Id.\r\nat ¶ 19, Exh. M) The deposition was re-noticed for August 17, 2021 at\r\nDefendant’s counsel’s office. (Id.) On August 13, Plaintiff served a\r\n“Notice of Opposition” to the August 17 deposition via email. (Id. at ¶\r\n21, Exh. N.) The objection states as follows:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“PLAINTIFF, NATALIE HERNANDEZ, opposes said deposition on\r\nthe grounds that Plaintiff is residing outside of the 150 miles limit. [¶]\r\nTherefore, thru this opposition Plaintiff formally informs Defendant and\r\ncounsel that she will not attend said scheduled deposition.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Id.) (Emphasis omitted.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Immediately after receiving this objection, Defendant\r\nPerez’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email, informing him the objection\r\nomitted any factual information allowing Defendant to determine whether the objection\r\nwas valid. (Id. at ¶ 22, Exh. O.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to\r\nDefendant Perez’s counsel. Nor did Plaintiff file an opposition to this Motion\r\nsubstantiating her objection. Defendant Perez’s counsel did not submit a\r\ncertificate of nonappearance, but in her declaration stated Plaintiff did not\r\nappear for deposition on August 17. (Id. at ¶ 23.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objection\r\nunsubstantiated and further finds that Defendant Perez is entitled to an order\r\ncompelling Plaintiff to appear for deposition. Plaintiff is ordered to appear\r\nfor deposition at a date and time to be noticed by Defendant Perez. At either\r\nparty’s election, the deposition may take place remotely as provided by Code of\r\nCivil Procedure section 2025.310.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

C. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a)\r\nprovides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a\r\nparty engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable\r\nexpenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that\r\nconduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to\r\nsubmit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,\r\nsubd. (d).) In addition, a court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion\r\nto compel a deposition is granted unless the one subject to sanctions acted\r\nwith substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition\r\nof the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to appear for\r\ndeposition and failure to cooperate in setting a new deposition date a misuse\r\nof the discovery process. The imposition of sanctions is also mandatory under\r\nCode of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 as Plaintiff has not presented any\r\nargument demonstrating sanctions would be unjust.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Perez seeks sanctions of $1,460.50 based on 8.4\r\nhours of attorney time billed at $165.00 per hour and filing fees of $83.50. (Mot.,\r\nMeyer-Morris Decl., ¶ 26). However, Defendant Perez’s request is excessive\r\ngiven the simplicity of the subject of this Motion and the lack of opposition\r\nand reply. The Court finds $474.15, based on 2.5 hours of attorney time and one\r\nfiling fee of $61.65, to be reasonable. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant\r\nPerez’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant\r\nPerez’s request for terminating sanctions, however, is DENIED.

\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\r\nJulio Garcia Perez’s Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff Natalie\r\nHernandez is ordered to appear for deposition at a date and time to be noticed\r\nby Defendant Perez. At either party’s election, the deposition may take place\r\nremotely as provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310. Furthermore,\r\nDefendant Perez’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $474.15 to\r\nbe paid within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'

Case Number: 20STLC00621    Hearing Date: May 17, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Julio Garcia Perez

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(CCP § 1048; CRC 3.350)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Julio Garcia Perez’s Motion to Consolidate is CONTINUED TO JUNE 17, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant Perez 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.

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 May 13, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 13, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff Natalie Hernandez (“Hernandez”) filed an action alleging motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Julio Garcia Perez (“Perez”). Perez filed an Answer, in pro per, on July 28, 2020. On August 6, 2020, Perez filed an Amended Answer and a substitution of attorney.

Defendant Perez filed a Notice of Related Case on November 30, 2020 seeking to relate this action to Everest National Insurance Co. v. Hernandez, et al., Case No. 20STLC09390 (the “Interpleader Case”). On December 8, 2020, the Court found this case and the Interpleader Case related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subdivision (a), and designated this case as the “lead case.” (12/18/20 Minute Order.)

On April 14, 2021, Defendant Perez filed the instant Motion to Consolidate (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

II. Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a) states in relevant part:

“(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest-numbered case shown first; and

(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.

(2) The motion to consolidate:

(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest-numbered case;

(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all non-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subd. (a).) (Emphasis added.) Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, states in relevant part:

(a) When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

(b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

III. Discussion

Defendant Perez seeks to consolidate this action with the Interpleader Case. (Mot., p. 3:3-14.)

Initially, the Court notes that the Motion does not satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. Specifically, the Notice of Motion does not list all named parties in each case, identify those parties that have appeared, and name their respective attorneys of record, if any. (Id. at p. 1.) It also does not contain the captions of both cases and their respective case numbers. (Id.) Further, the notice of Motion and Motion were not filed in the Interpleader Case.

Thus, the matter is continued to allow Defendant Perez an opportunity to satisfy these requirements.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Julio Garcia Perez’s Motion to Consolidate is CONTINUED TO JUNE 17, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant Perez 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.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC00621    Hearing Date: April 7, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., April 7, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Hernandez v. Perez COMPL. FILED: 01-21-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC00621 DISC. C/O: 10-19-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 11-03-21

TRIAL DATE: 11-18-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Julio Garcia Perez

RESP. PARTY: None

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

(CCP §2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Julio Garcia Perez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $413.00 to be paid to Defendant’s 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 April 5, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 5, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff Natalie Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Julio Garcia Perez (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on July 28, 2020, and an Amended Answer on August 6, 2020.

On November 23, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom 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., § 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., § 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); 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., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Defendant’s counsel’s office electronically served a Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff’s counsel on August 24, 2020. (Mot., Myer-Morris Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) On October 15, 2020, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel a letter regarding the overdue responses and granting an extension to respond until October 26, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. B.) To date, Plaintiff has not served any responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

B. 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’s discovery request a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel seeks sanctions of $792.50 based on 4.3 hours of attorney time billed at $165.00 per hour, one filing fee of $60.00, and one remote appearance fee of $23.00. (Mot., Myer-Morris Decl., ¶ 7.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $413.00, based on 2 hours of attorney time, one filing fee, and one remote appearance fee, to be reasonable.

Defendant also requests terminating sanctions if Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court’s order. (Mot., p 5:8-15.) However, Defendant’s request is improper. A request for terminating sanctions must be made via a separate, noticed motion.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Julio Garcia Perez’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $413.00 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ALLIANCE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY CORP is a litigant

Latest cases where EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MEYER-MORRIS DEBORAH