Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/23/2021 at 01:19:41 (UTC).

RYAN HUTCHINS, ET AL. VS ROBERT MUSSO, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/01/2019 RYAN HUTCHINS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ROBERT MUSSO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4281

  • Filing Date:

    05/01/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

HUTCHINS JENNIFER

HUTCHINS RYAN

Defendants

MUSSO ROBERT

ROBERT MUSSO DBA R.P.M. CONSTRUCTION

R.P.M. A PARTNERSHIP

R.P.M. CONSTRUCTION LLC

R.P.M. CONSTRUCTION A CORP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

TKACH JOHN A

Defendant Attorney

AKHKASHIAN KHACHIK

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/23/2021
  • Hearing06/23/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Status of Settlement and Dismissal scheduled for 06/23/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial;) of 04/21/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 04/21/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Robert Musso (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by: Robert Musso (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by: Robert Musso (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/04/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 03/04/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Ryan Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: Robert Musso (Defendant); Robert Musso dba R.P.M. Construction (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
53 More Docket Entries
  • 07/08/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Ryan Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: R.P.M. Construction, a corp (Defendant); Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Ryan Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: Robert Musso dba R.P.M. Construction (Defendant); Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Ryan Hutchins (Plaintiff); Jennifer Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: Robert Musso (Defendant); Robert Musso dba R.P.M. Construction (Defendant); R.P.M. Construction, a corp (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Ryan Hutchins (Plaintiff); Jennifer Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: Robert Musso (Defendant); Robert Musso dba R.P.M. Construction (Defendant); R.P.M. Construction, a corp (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Ryan Hutchins (Plaintiff); Jennifer Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: Robert Musso (Defendant); Robert Musso dba R.P.M. Construction (Defendant); R.P.M. Construction, a corp (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04281    Hearing Date: March 04, 2021    Dept: 26

Hutchins v. Musso, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION; DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Ryan Hutchins’ (1) Motion To Compel Responses To Special Interrogatories And Request For Sanctions; (2) Motion To Compel Responses To Form Interrogatories And Request For Sanctions; (3) Motion To Compel Responses To Demand For Production Of Documents And Request For Sanctions; And (3) Motion To Deem Requests For Admission Admitted And Request For Sanctions are GRANTED. DEFENDANT ROBERT MUSSO IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT ROBERT MUSSO AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $908.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Ryan Hutchins (“Plaintiff Ryan”) propounded Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission and Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant Robert Musso (“Defendant Musso”) on March 11, 2020. (Motions, Tkach Decl., Exh. 1.) Following Defendant Musso’s failure to provide timely responses, Plaintiff extended the deadline to respond to April 26, 2020. (Id. at Exh. B.) Following no response from Defendant Musso, Plaintiff Ryan filed the instant (1) Motion To Compel Responses To Special Interrogatories And Request For Sanctions; (2) Motion To Compel Responses To Form Interrogatories And Request For Sanctions; (3) Motion To Compel Responses To Demand For Production Of Documents And Request For Sanctions; and (4) Motion To Deem Requests For Admission Admitted And Request For Sanctions on July 28, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Based on Defendant Musso’s failure to serve initial responses, the Motions to compel responses to interrogatories and request for production, and to deem admissions admitted are granted. There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses or deem admissions admitted can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; 2033.280.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; 2033.280.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Ryan is entitled to an order compelling Defendant Musso to serve verified responses to the interrogatories and request for production without objections. The Court also deems the requests for admission admitted against Defendant Musso.

Finally, Defendant Musso’s failure to timely respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 and have been properly noticed. However, the amount sought is excessive under a lodestar calculation. Therefore, the requests for sanctions are granted against Defendant Musso and counsel of record in the amount of $908.00 based on 1.5 hours of attorney time billed at $350.00 an hour, plus $383.00 in costs. (Motions, Tkach Decl., ¶4.) The sanctions are to be paid within 20 days’ service of this order.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Ryan Hutchins’ (1) Motion To Compel Responses To Special Interrogatories And Request For Sanctions; (2) Motion To Compel Responses To Form Interrogatories And Request For Sanctions; (3) Motion To Compel Responses To Demand For Production Of Documents And Request For Sanctions; And (3) Motion To Deem Requests For Admission Admitted And Request For Sanctions are GRANTED. DEFENDANT ROBERT MUSSO IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT ROBERT MUSSO AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $908.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice of this order.

Case Number: 19STLC04281    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO CASE QUESTIONNAIRE

AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 93(e); 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Ryan Hutchins and Jennifer Hutchins’ Motion to Compel Response to Case Questionnaire and Request for Sanction is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Only May 1, 2019, Plaintiffs Ryan Hutchins and Jennifer Hutchins (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against Defendants Robert Musso and Robert Musso dba R.P.M. Construction, RPM Constructions, RPM Construction, LLC and RPM, a partnership (“Defendants”). On April 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Response to Case Questionnaire, and Request for Sanctions. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 93, a plaintiff may serve case questionnaires with the Complaint, which includes a “a completed copy of the plaintiff’s completed case questionnaire, and a blank copy of the defendant's case questionnaire.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 93, subd. (a).) The defendant upon whom a case questionnaire is served must serve a completed questionnaire with the Answer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 93, subd. (b).) Upon failure to serve a completed questionnaire with the Answer, the plaintiff may move for an order compelling service of the defendant’s completed response or further response to the questionnaire and for sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 93, subd. (e); 2023.010.)

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Defendants Robert Musso and Robert Musso dba R.P.M. Construction’s responses to the case questionnaire following service and filing of their Answers on December 31, 2019 without said response. Plaintiffs, however, have not demonstrated they are entitled to such an order. No evidence is attached to the Motion demonstrating service of the blank case questionnaire on Defendants Robert Musso and Robert Musso dba R.P.M. Construction, nor of Plaintiffs’ completed questionnaires, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 93. (Motion, Tkach Decl.) The only evidence on which Plaintiffs rely is a meet and confer letter demanding a response to the purportedly served questionnaires. (Id. at Exh. 1.) This does not carry Plaintiffs’ burden of proof.

Therefore, the Court cannot find that Defendants Robert Musso and Robert Musso dba R.P.M. Construction are required to serve completed case questionnaires, nor that Plaintiffs are entitled to sanctions, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 93 and 2023.010.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Ryan Hutchins and Jennifer Hutchins’ Motion to Compel Response to Case Questionnaire and Request for Sanction is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where R.P.M. CONSTRUCTION LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where RPM, INC. is a litigant