NICOLE JACKSON VS ROGER FARRAJ

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03579    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: 26

Jackson v. Feraj, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

(CCP §§ 2030.300, 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s LLC’s (1) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.

DEFENDANT ROGER FERAJ DBA ANDY’S AUTO SERVICE IS AWARDED SANCTIONS OF $800.00 TO BE PAID BY PLAINTIFF TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Nicole Jackson filed the instant action for breach of contract and related claims against Defendant Roger Feraj dba Andy’s Auto Service (“Defendant”) on April 11, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motions to Compel Further Responses on September 12, 2019. Defendant filed oppositions on February 10, 2020. The Motions were originally set to be heard on March 4, 2020. On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff continued the Motions to April 28, 2020. Plaintiff also refiled the Motions on March 25 and 30, 2020 with accompanying declarations and separate statements. On April 6, 2020, Defendant filed Requests for Judicial Notice of his earlier filed oppositions.

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)).

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses are procedurally defective in that they are untimely. Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be served within 45 days of service of the inadequate responses, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The initial motions filed on September 19, 2019 were not served on Defendant at that time. Defendant only learned of the motions upon receipt of the Court’s notice that the hearing was continued from December 11, 2019 to March 4, 2020. Notice of the Motions was not provided to Defendant until March 24, 2020 following the second continuance of the hearing to April 22, 2020. (Motions, filed 3/25/20 and 3/30/20, Proofs of Service.)

Defendant’s responses to the discovery, however, had been served on Plaintiff on July 19 and 24, 2019. (Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Jackson Decl., Exh. B; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, p. 3:19.) The 45-day deadline to provide notice of the Motions passed in August 2019 without compliance. As a result, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Motions.

Additionally, the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is not accompanied by any supporting declaration.  As a result, Plaintiff provides no evidence to the Court that she ever served the Form Interrogatories purportedly at issue on Defendant. Nor can Plaintiff demonstrate that she met and conferred with Defendant regarding the purportedly inadequate responses to the Form Interrogatories without a supporting declaration. As noted above, a meet and confer effort is required in order to bring a motion to compel further responses. Finally, the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is not accompanied by a separate statement as required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345.

Based on these procedural defects, including the incurable defect in failing to provide notice of the Motions within 45 days of service of the responses, Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motions to Compel Further Responses are DENIED.

The Court further finds Defendant is entitled to an award of sanctions due to Plaintiff’s unsuccessful Motions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (d) and 2031.310, subdivision (h). Based on a lodestar calculation, sanctions are awarded in the amount of $800.00 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $400.00 per hour. (Id. at ¶7.) The sanctions are to be paid within 30 days’ notice of this Order.

Defendant to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03579    Hearing Date: March 04, 2020    Dept: 26

Jackson v. Feraj, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s LLC’s (1) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.

DEFENDANT ROGER FERAJ DBA ANDY’S AUTO SERVICE IS AWARDED SANCTIONS OF $800.00 TO BE PAID BY PLAINTIFF TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Nicole Jackson filed the instant action for breach of contract and related claims against Defendant Roger Feraj dba Andy’s Auto Service (“Defendant”) on April 11, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motions to Compel Further Responses on September 12, 2019. Defendant filed oppositions on February 10, 2020.

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)).

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses are procedurally defective in several respects. First, the Motions are not accompanied by proofs of service demonstrating that Defendant was served with the Motions or notices of hearing. In his opposition, Defendant affirms that he was never served with the Motions and only became aware of them upon the Court’s order continuing the hearings to March 4, 2020.

Next, the Motions are untimely. Notice of a motion to compel further responses must be served within 45 days of service of the inadequate responses, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, because notice of the Motions was never provided to Defendant, the 45-day deadline passed without compliance. As a result, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Motions.

Third, the Motions are also not accompanied by any supporting declaration. As a result, Plaintiff provides no evidence to the Court that she ever served the discovery requests purportedly at issue on Defendant. It is only through Defendant’s oppositions that the Court is presented with evidence that Plaintiff served the discovery requests on June 24, 2019. (Opp., Chaitin Decl., ¶¶2-3.) Also, without a supporting declaration, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she met and conferred with Defendant regarding the purportedly inadequate responses. As noted above, a meet and confer effort is required in order to bring a motion to compel further responses. Indeed, Defendant’s opposition confirms that no meet and confer effort was made prior to the filing of these Motions. (Id. at ¶¶5-6.)

Finally, the Motions are not accompanied by separate statements as required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345.

Based on these procedural defects, including the incurable defect in failing to provide notice within 45 days of service of the responses, Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motions to Compel Further Responses are DENIED.

The Court further finds Defendant is entitled to an award of sanctions due to Plaintiff’s unsuccessful Motions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (d) and 2031.310, subdivision (h). Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $800.00 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $400.00 per hour. (Id. at ¶7.) The sanctions are to be paid within 30 days’ notice of this Order.

Court clerk to give notice.