This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/29/2021 at 00:09:06 (UTC).

ORLANDO GARCIA VS EL PUEBLITO LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Case Summary

On 08/10/2020 ORLANDO GARCIA filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against EL PUEBLITO LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. 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:

    *******6686

  • Filing Date:

    08/10/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GARCIA ORLANDO

Defendant

EL PUEBLITO LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

HANDY RUSSELL

Defendant Attorney

SUH MIN W

 

Court Documents

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

8/10/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

8/10/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

8/10/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/10/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

8/10/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Clerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required - Clerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required

8/10/2020: Clerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required - Clerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required

Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility C - Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility

6/18/2021: Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility C - Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility

Defendant's Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference Pursuant to Civil Code Section 55 - Defendant's Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference Pursuant to Civil Code Section 55.

1/20/2021: Defendant's Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference Pursuant to Civil Code Section 55 - Defendant's Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference Pursuant to Civil Code Section 55.

Answer - Answer

1/20/2021: Answer - Answer

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

12/29/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order - Minute Order (Early Evaluation Conference (Construction Related Accessibili...)

8/17/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Early Evaluation Conference (Construction Related Accessibili...)

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE

9/15/2021: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Bradley Smith

9/15/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Bradley Smith

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

9/15/2021: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Bradley Smith in Support Of Motion

9/15/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Bradley Smith in Support Of Motion

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

10/26/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

11/1/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/14/2023
  • Hearing08/14/2023 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
  • 02/07/2022
  • Hearing02/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2021
  • Hearing11/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: ORLANDO GARCIA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") --6701 scheduled for 10/26/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/26/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Site Inspection --0496 scheduled for 10/26/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/26/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other Request for Admissions Deemed Admitted --7388 scheduled for 11/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") --6701 scheduled for 10/26/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Site Inspection --0496 scheduled for 10/26/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: ORLANDO GARCIA (Plaintiff); As to: El Pueblito LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 12/22/2020; Service Cost: 35.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/14/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketClerk's Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required; Filed by: Clerk; As to: RUSSELL HANDY (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: ORLANDO GARCIA (Plaintiff); As to: El Pueblito LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ORLANDO GARCIA (Plaintiff); As to: El Pueblito LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: ORLANDO GARCIA (Plaintiff); As to: El Pueblito LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC06686 Hearing Date: November 29, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO DEEM THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE,\r\nADMITTED AND CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nOrlando Garcia

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2033.280)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Orlando Garcia’s Motion to\r\nDeem the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set One,\r\nAdmitted and Conclusively Established is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

\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 November\r\n18, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof November 18, 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 August 10, 2020, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant El Pueblito, LLC (“Defendant”)\r\nalleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant filed an Answer on\r\nJanuary 20, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of\r\nMatters Specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted and\r\nConclusively Established (the “Motion”) on September 15, 2021. No opposition\r\nwas filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Requests for\r\nAdmission

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30\r\ndays after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.\r\n(a).) “If a party to whom requests for\r\nadmission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives\r\nany objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the\r\nprotection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The\r\nrequesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents\r\nand the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as\r\nwell as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion\r\ndealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses,\r\ndoes not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding\r\nparty. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home\r\nEstates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds\r\nin Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21\r\nCal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters\r\ndeemed admitted must be made. (Brigante\r\nv. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel states Defendant was served with\r\nRequests for Admission, Set One, on February 8, 2021 via regular mail and email.\r\n(Mot., Smith Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs. A-C.) Plaintiff attaches copies of the discovery\r\npropounded with the accompanying proof of service. (Id.) The proof of\r\nservice demonstrates that the discovery requests were mailed to Defendant’s\r\ncounsel’s office at 732 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, CA 91765. (Id.)\r\nHowever, Plaintiff mailed the discovery requests to the incorrect\r\naddress. Specifically, Defendant’s\r\ncounsel’s address is 732 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., Suite 112, Diamond\r\nBar Blvd., CA 91765. (See Answer.) Thus, the Court cannot find Defendant was\r\nproperly served via mail with the Requests for Admission.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Further, although Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration\r\nstates that the discovery was also served via email, the proof of service for\r\nthe discovery does not indicate the discovery was served via email nor does it\r\nset forth the email address at which Defendant’s counsel was purportedly served.\r\n(Mot., Smith Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs. A-C.) Plaintiff’s counsel attaches an email\r\nreceipt purporting to show that the subject discovery was emailed to\r\nDefendant’s counsel at suhcpalaw@msn.com. (Id.) This email address appears\r\nneither on the proof of service nor on any of the documents filed by\r\nDefendant’s counsel. Notably, Defendant’s counsel identified her email as suhcpalaw@outlook.com in two notices of stay filed on\r\nJanuary 20, 2021 and June 18, 2021. There is no other indication Plaintiff\r\nconfirmed the MSN email address was correct before serving the Requests for\r\nAdmission at that address as required by Code of Civil Procedure section\r\n1010.6, subdivision (e).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As Plaintiff has not demonstrated Defendant was properly\r\nserved with the discovery, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nOrlando Garcia’s Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests\r\nfor Admission, Set One, Admitted and Conclusively Established is DENIED WITHOUT\r\nPREJUDICE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC06686 Hearing Date: October 26, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL ANSWERS WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET\r\nONE, AND RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,\r\nSET ONE, AND TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH REQUEST FOR ENTRY AND INSPECTION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nOrlando Garcia

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;\r\nREQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §2031.300)

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Orlando Garcia’s request to\r\nCompel Responses to the Request for Entry and Inspection is GRANTED. Defendant\r\nEl Pueblito, LLC must respond without objections to Plaintiff’s Demand within\r\nthirty (30) days of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However, Plaintiff’s requests to\r\ncompel responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Request\r\nfor Production of Documents are DENIED.

\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 October\r\n22, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof October 22, 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

On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant El Pueblito, LLC (“Defendant”)\r\nalleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendant filed an Answer on\r\nJanuary 20, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Answers\r\nWithout Objections to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, and to Demand\r\nfor Production of Documents, Set One, and to Compel Compliance with Request for\r\nEntry and Inspection (the “Motion”) on September 15. No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Request for\r\nEntry to Inspect Property

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, subdivision\r\n(d), provides that “[a]ny party may demand that any other party allow the party\r\nmaking the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to enter\r\non any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of\r\nthe party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey,\r\nphotograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated\r\nobject or operation on it.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to inspection demands within 30 days\r\nafter service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom\r\ninspection demands are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting\r\nparty may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ.\r\nProc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any\r\nobjections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to\r\ncompel responses to inspection demands other than the cut-off on hearing\r\ndiscovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd.\r\n(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required\r\nbefore filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc.,\r\n§ 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare\r\nConsulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th\r\n390, 411.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant\r\nwith a Request for Entry and Inspection on February 11, 2021 via regular mail. (Mot.,\r\nSmith Decl., ¶ 5, Exhs. D, E.) Plaintiff’s request sought to inspect the\r\nproperty located at 4442 E. 57th St., Maywood, CA on March 18, 2021 at 11:00\r\na.m. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel also states that, after not hearing back\r\nfrom Defendant, he sent an expert to the property but the expert was not\r\nallowed to inspect it. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.) Counsel further states that he\r\nattempted to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel but was unable to do so. (Id.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an\r\norder compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s request for entry and inspection.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for\r\nProduction of Documents

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for\r\nproduction of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to\r\nwhom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does\r\nnot provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order\r\ncompelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b);\r\nCode Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to\r\nmake any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product\r\nprotection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses\r\nto interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing\r\ndiscovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd.\r\n(a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are\r\nrequired before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants\r\n(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s counsel states Defendant was served with Form\r\nInterrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for\r\nProduction of Documents, Set One, on February 8. (Mot., Smith Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs.\r\nA-C.) Plaintiff also attaches copies of the discovery propounded with the\r\naccompanying proof of service. (Id.) The proof of service demonstrates\r\nthat the discovery requests were mailed to Defendant’s counsel’s office at 732\r\nN. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, CA 91765. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

First, the Court notes Plaintiff filed a single motion\r\nand paid only two filing fees for what should have been four separate motions. Combining discovery motions allows the\r\nmoving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are\r\njurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them.\r\n(See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital\r\n(2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Filing combined motions is also improper\r\nbecause it allows the moving party to avoid daily limits set for the\r\nDepartment’s law and motion calendar.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In addition, Plaintiff mailed the\r\ndiscovery requests to the incorrect address. Specifically, Defendant’s counsel’s address is 732\r\nN. Diamond Bar Blvd., Suite 112, Diamond Bar Blvd., CA 91765. Thus,\r\nthe Court cannot find Defendant was properly served with the Form\r\nInterrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of\r\nDocuments. Thus, Plaintiff’s request to compel responses to these requests is\r\nDENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nOrlando Garcia’s request to Compel Responses to the Request for Entry and\r\nInspection is GRANTED. Defendant El Pueblito, LLC must respond without\r\nobjections to Plaintiff’s Demand within thirty (30) days of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However, Plaintiff’s requests to\r\ncompel responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Request\r\nfor Production of Documents are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HANDY RUSSELL ESQ.