This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/18/2021 at 03:00:29 (UTC).

SHARON LA GUE VS AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC

Case Summary

On 11/05/2020 SHARON LA GUE filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9377

  • Filing Date:

    11/05/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LA GUE SHARON

Defendant

AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KIM JONG YUN ESQ.

KIM JONG YUN

Defendant Attorneys

EUSTACHE BASHIR ERNST

EUSTACHE BASHIR ERNST ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement

9/28/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement

Reply (name extension) - Reply AF Properties 2015 LLC's Reply in Support of its Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to Section 664.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Motion for Attorney's Fees

10/5/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply AF Properties 2015 LLC's Reply in Support of its Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to Section 664.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Motion for Attorney's Fees

Minute Order - Minute Order (HEARING ON MOTION BY DEFENDANT (AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC), TO E...)

10/13/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (HEARING ON MOTION BY DEFENDANT (AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC), TO E...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (HEARING ON MOTION BY DEFENDANT (AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC), TO E...) of 10/13/2021

10/13/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (HEARING ON MOTION BY DEFENDANT (AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC), TO E...) of 10/13/2021

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/30/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Pl...) of 08/31/2021

8/31/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Pl...) of 08/31/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Pl...)

8/31/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Pl...)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Bashir Eustache in Support of AF Properties 2015 LLC's Opposition to Motion to Compel

8/17/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Bashir Eustache in Support of AF Properties 2015 LLC's Opposition to Motion to Compel

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendant AF Properties 2015 LLC's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and to Dee

8/17/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendant AF Properties 2015 LLC's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and to Dee

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Bashir Eustache in Support of AF Properties 2015 LLC's Motion to Enforce Settlement

8/18/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Bashir Eustache in Support of AF Properties 2015 LLC's Motion to Enforce Settlement

Motion to Enforce Settlement - Motion re: AF Properties 2015 LLC's Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to Section 664.6 of the CCP; Motion for Attorney's Fees of $4,137

8/18/2021: Motion to Enforce Settlement - Motion re: AF Properties 2015 LLC's Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to Section 664.6 of the CCP; Motion for Attorney's Fees of $4,137

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

6/23/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

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

6/23/2021: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Answer - Answer

12/9/2020: Answer - Answer

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

12/2/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/5/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

11/5/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/5/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/05/2022
  • Hearing05/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • Hearing10/25/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One) and for Monetary Sanctions: Filed By: Sharon La Gue (Plaintiff); Result: Off Calendar; Result Date: 10/13/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of All Facts Specified in Plaintiff's Request for Admissions (Set One) Served on the Defendant; Request for Monetary Sanctions: Filed By: Sharon La Gue (Plaintiff); Result: Off Calendar; Result Date: 10/13/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to CCP Section 664.6 and Enter Judgment Against the Plaintiff; Motion for Attorney's Fees of $4,137 Pursuant to the Terms of the Agreement: Filed By: AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/13/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review Re: Proposed Judgment - following the Granting of a Motion to Enforce Settlement (10/13/21) scheduled for 10/25/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (HEARING ON MOTION BY DEFENDANT (AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC), TO E...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (HEARING ON MOTION BY DEFENDANT (AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC), TO E...) of 10/13/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to CCP Section 664.6 and Enter Judgment Against the Plaintiff; Motion for Attorney's Fees of $4,137 Pursuant to the Terms of the Agreement, Filed by the Defendant scheduled for 10/13/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 10/13/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One) and for Monetary Sanctions scheduled for 10/13/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 10/13/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 12/09/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC (Defendant); As to: Sharon La Gue (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Sharon La Gue (Plaintiff); As to: AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 11/09/2020; Service Cost: 51.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/09/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Sharon La Gue (Plaintiff); As to: AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Sharon La Gue (Plaintiff); As to: AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Sharon La Gue (Plaintiff); As to: AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 20STLC09377 Hearing Date: October 13, 2021 Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS:\n MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND\nAWARD ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING\nPARTY: Plaintiff AF Properties 2015,\nLLC

RESP.\nPARTY: Sharon La Gue

ENFORCE\nSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

(CCP\n§ 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant AF Properties 2015,\nLLC’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS FURTHER AWARDED\nATTORNEY’S FEES OF $4,137.00. DEFENDANT IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN\nTEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service\nTimely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP\n1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP\n12c and 1005 (b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action\nfor discrimination on the basis of disability.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendant moves for an order enforcing\nparties’ settlement agreement and awarding attorney’s fees of $4,137.00.\nThe parties executed a settlement agreement that completely resolves this\naction but Plaintiff refuses to provide the required tax document in order for\nDefendant to disburse the settlement monies. A W-9 form for both Plaintiff and\nPlaintiff’s counsel is necessary for the settlement to have a lawful purpose.\nCompliance with legal requirements is implicit in any agreement and does not\nhave to be expressly stated. It is also the custom and practice of the legal\nindustry, and of the attorneys in this transaction to exchange W-9 forms for\nboth the client and attorney. In moving to enforce this settlement agreement,\nDefendant is also entitled to a reward of its attorney’s fees.

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff’s\ncounsel provided defense counsel with its W-9, which is sufficient for the\nsettlement agreement. Defendant cannot double-dip by asking for W-9s for both\nPlaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in order to file a 1099 as to both. Nor is\nthere any requirement to separately report the settlement amount and the\nattorney’s fees claimed thereunder. The portion of the 1099 instructions cited\nby Defendant regarding reporting for both the claimant and claimant’s attorney\nare inapplicable to a settlement for violation of civil rights. Those\ninstructions only apply to payments of “rent, salaries, wages, premiums,\nannuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or\ndeterminable gains, profits, and income.” Payments for personal injuries do not\nfall under the federal definition of income and only require submission of a\n1099 for the representing attorney.

REPLY: Plaintiff’s\nopposition offers only a tortured reading of tax law to contend that a client’s\nW-9 is not required for a settlement agreement. Plaintiff does not address the\nstandard practice in the legal industry or between the attorneys here is to\nprovide the client’s W-9 form. Plaintiff also has abandoned the discovery\nmotions and does not address Defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees for\nenforcement of the settlement agreement.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Sharon\nLa Gue (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant\naction for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendant AF\nProperties 2015, LLC (“Defendant”) on November 5, 2020. Defendant answered on\nDecember 9, 2020. On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed discovery motions, which\nwere set to be heard on August 31, 2021. Prior to the hearing date, Defendant\nfiled the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Attorney’s\nFees on August 18, 2021.

At the hearing on Plaintiff’s discovery\nmotions, the Court continued that matter to be heard concurrently with the\ninstant Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Minute Order, 08/31/21.)

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion\nto Enforce Settlement on September 28, 2021.

Discussion

Defendant moves to enforce a settlement agreement purportedly reached\nbetween the parties in April 2021 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section\n664.6, which states:

If parties to pending litigation\nstipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court\nor orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the\ncourt, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.\nIf requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties\nto enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the\nsettlement.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)\nDefendant presents evidence that the parties signed the settlement agreement on\nApril 29, 2021 and May 13, 2021 respectively. (Motion, Eustache Decl., Exh. F.)\nThereafter, Defendant requested a W-9 form for Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s\ncounsel. (Id. at ¶5 and Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel provided a W-9 form\nfor the law office, but refused to provide one for Plaintiff. (Id. at\n¶¶5-8 and Exhs. C-E.) Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Defendant’s continued\ninsistence for Plaintiff’s W-9 form meant the parties had no deal. (Ibid.)\nDefendant then filed the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement when the parties\ncould not agree on production of Plaintiff’s W-9 form. (Id. at ¶9.)

Defendant argues that production\nof Plaintiff’s W-9 form is required for its compliance with tax laws and it\ncannot lawfully disburse the settlement funds otherwise. Defendant contends\nthat it requires a W-9 for Plaintiff in order to submit a 1099 form, which the\nIRS requires for attorneys and clients following a settlement agreement. In support\nof this, Defendant cites to instructions for submission of 1099-MISC and\n1099-NEC, which are attached at the end of Exhibit F. The instructions provide:

For example, a person who, in the\ncourse of a trade or business, pays $600 of taxable damages to a claimant by\npaying that amount to a claimant's attorney is required to:

· \nFurnish Form 1099-MISC to the claimant,\nreporting damages pursuant to section 6041, generally in box 3; and

· \nFurnish Form 1099-MISC to the claimant’s\nattorney, reporting gross proceeds paid pursuant to section 6045(f) in box 10.

For more examples and exceptions\nrelating to payments to attorneys, see Regulations section 1.6045-5.

(Motion, Exh. F, 2021\nInstructions for Forms 1099-MISC and 1099-NEC, p. 2.) According to the instruction,\nthe reporting of damages on behalf of the claim is pursuant to 26 U.S. Code,\nsection 6041. In opposition, Plaintiff points out that 26 U.S. Code, section\n6041 only requires reporting for payments “to another person, of rent,\nsalaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments,\nor other fixed or determinable gains, profits, and income.” (26 U.S. Code, §\n6401, subd. (a).) Plaintiff argues that the settlement payment was not for any\nof these enumerated categories, but for damages Plaintiff incurred as a result\nof violation of her civil rights. (Citing 26 U.S.C.A., § 61, subd. (a)\n[definition of “gross income”].) Plaintiff further contends a more accurate\ncategorization of the settlement proceeds in this case is payment for personal\ninjuries, which is specifically excluded from the definition of “gross income”\nunder 26 U.S. Code section 61. (26 U.S.C.A, § 104, subd. (a).)

“Gross income” is broadly defined\nunless specifically excluded. (26 U.S.C.A., § 61, subd. (a).) Plaintiff has not\nshown that settlements for discrimination on the basis of disability in public\naccommodation are excluded from the definition of gross income. The exclusion\nnarrowly applies to “damages received on account of personal physical injuries\nor physical sickness.” (Perez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (T.C.\n2015) 144 T.C. 51, 58.) Plaintiff offers no authority to show that a settlement\nfor discrimination on the basis of disability qualifies as damages for\n“personal physical injuries or physical sickness.” See also IRS\nPublication 4345 (Rev. 2019)

Therefore, the Court finds that\nDefendant is required to submit a 1099 form in connection with payment of the\nsettlement proceeds in this action. Plaintiff is in breach of the terms of the\nparties’ settlement agreement; thus, enforcement of its terms is appropriate.

Defendant is also entitled to an\naward of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to paragraph 13 of the parties’\nsettlement agreement. (Motion, Eustache Decl., Exh. G, ¶13.) Under a lodestar\ncalculation, Defendant is awarded attorney’s fees of $4,137.00 based on seven\nhours of attorney time billed at $591.00 per hour. (Id. at ¶¶10-11.)

Conclusion

Defendant AF Properties 2015,\nLLC’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS FURTHER AWARDED\nATTORNEY’S FEES OF $4,137.00. DEFENDANT IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN\nTEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Moving party to give notice.

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO FORM\nINTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND REQUESTS FOR\nPRODUCTION (SET ONE); AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(2)\nMOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED AGINST DEFENDANT; AND REQUEST\nFOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING\nPARTY: Plaintiff Sharon La Gue

RESP.\nPARTY: Defendant\nAF Properties 2015, LLC

MOTION\nTO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; DEEM\nREQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

REQUEST\nFOR SANCTIONS

(CCP\n§§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

PLAINTIFF SHARON LA GUE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S\nRESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE),\nREQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY\nSANCTIONS ARE PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

SERVICE OF MOTION:

[X]\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X]\nCorrect Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X]\n16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT:\nAction for discrimination on the basis of disability.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Compel Defendant to provide\nverified responses to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories,\nset one, and request for production, set one, without objections. Deem requests\nfor admission against Defendant. Award Plaintiff sanctions of $1,200.00 per\nmotion.

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff’s discovery motions are\nbrought without substantial justification. The parties have settled this case, but Plaintiff refuses to comply\nwith her obligations under the settlement. There is no reason for discovery at\nthis time.

REPLY: None filed as of\nOctober 12, 2021.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Sharon La Gue (“Plaintiff”) propounded Form\nInterrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for\nProduction of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Admission on Defendant AF\nProperties 2015, LLC (“Defendant”) on December 18, 2020. (Motion, Kim Decl.,\nExhs. A, B and C.) Following no response from Defendant despite a meet and\nconfer effort, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Defendant’s\nResponses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),\nRequests for Production of Documents (Set One); and Request For Monetary\nSanctions; and (2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted;\nand Request for Monetary Sanctions on June 23, 2021. Defendant filed an\nopposition on August 17, 2021.

Discussion

The Motions initially came for hearing on August 31, 2021,\nat which time the Court noted that Plaintiff had improperly reserved a single\ndiscovery motion to compel responses with respect to three separate sets of\ndiscovery. (Minute Order, 08/31/21.) The Court continued the hearing to allow\nPlaintiff to pay additional motion filing fees. (Ibid.) To date,\nhowever, Plaintiff has not paid any additional motion filing fees. Furthermore,\nthe Court now having ruled on the Motion to Enforce Settlement in Defendant’s\nfavor finds that Plaintiff’s discovery motions are moot.

Conclusion

PLAINTIFF SHARON LA GUE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S\nRESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE), SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE),\nREQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY\nSANCTIONS; ARE PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

Defendant to give notice.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

"b'

Case Number: 20STLC09377 Hearing Date: August 31, 2021 Dept: 26

La Gue v. AF\r\nProperties 2015, LLC, et al. 20STLC09377

MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; DEEM\r\nREQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

\r\n\r\n

REQUEST\r\nFOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP\r\n§§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280, 2023.010)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Sharon La Gue’s (1) Motion to Compel Defendant’s\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),\r\nRequests for Production of Documents (Set One); and Request For Monetary\r\nSanctions; and (2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted;\r\nand Request for Monetary Sanctions are CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 13, 2021 AT 10:00\r\nAM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Sharon La Gue (“Plaintiff”) propounded Form\r\nInterrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for\r\nProduction of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Admission on Defendant AF\r\nProperties 2015, LLC (“Defendant”) on December 18, 2020. (Motion, Kim Decl.,\r\nExhs. A, B and C.) Following no response from Defendant despite a meet and\r\nconfer effort, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Defendant’s\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),\r\nRequests for Production of Documents (Set One); and Request For Monetary\r\nSanctions; and (2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted;\r\nand Request for Monetary Sanctions on June 23, 2021. Defendant filed an\r\nopposition on August 17, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant also filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement, which\r\nis set for hearing on October 13, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Initially, the Court addresses the fact that Plaintiff has\r\nreserved a single discovery motion to compel responses with respect to three\r\nseparate sets of discovery. Combining three separate motions into a single\r\nmotion and reservation negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more\r\nmotions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation\r\nsystem. Furthermore, it allows the party to avoid paying the requisite filing\r\nfees. “[I]t is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily\r\nrequired filing fees.” (Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114\r\nCal.App.4th 457, 460.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Additionally, there is a pending Motion to Enforce\r\nSettlement Agreement set for hearing on October 13, 2021. If the Motion to\r\nEnforce Settlement is granted, the instant discovery motions will be moot.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The hearing on the discovery motions, therefore, is\r\ncontinued to October 13, 2021 to be held concurrently with the Motion to Enforce\r\nSettlement Agreement.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Sharon La Gue’s (1) Motion to Compel Defendant’s\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One),\r\nRequests for Production of Documents (Set One); and Request For Monetary Sanctions;\r\nand (2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted; and Request\r\nfor Monetary Sanctions are CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 13, 2021 AT 10:00 AM IN\r\nDEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO\r\nTHE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY TWO ADDITIONAL FILING FEES FOR THE\r\nDISCOVERY MOTIONS.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AF PROPERTIES 2015 LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KIM, JONG YUN