This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/30/2021 at 01:37:51 (UTC).

TRI-TECH RESTORATION & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS JOHN MILLER, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/10/2020 TRI-TECH RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION CO , INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JOHN MILLER. 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:

    *******2341

  • Filing Date:

    03/10/2020

  • 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

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

TRI-TECH RESTORATION & CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants

PATRICIA GRANA AS TRUSTEE OF THE JOHN MILLER AND PATRICIA GRANA FAMILY TRUST

MILLER JOHN AKA JACK MILLER

JOHN MILLER AS TRUSTEE OF THE JOHN MILLER AND PATRICIA GRANA FAMILY TRUST

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BATES JAMES

Defendant Attorney

ROMLEY DAVID

 

Court Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Deemed Admitted Order

1/5/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Deemed Admitted Order

Reply (name extension) - Reply To Opposition To Motion For Order Deeming Admissions Admitted; Declaration Of James W. Bates

1/20/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply To Opposition To Motion For Order Deeming Admissions Admitted; Declaration Of James W. Bates

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

1/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

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

10/14/2020: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

8/18/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

8/18/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

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

5/12/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

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

5/12/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

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

5/12/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

General Denial - General Denial

6/12/2020: General Denial - General Denial

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3/10/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/10/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

3/10/2020: Complaint - Complaint

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

3/10/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/10/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/14/2023
  • Hearing03/14/2023 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
  • 09/07/2021
  • Hearing09/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 01/28/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 01/28/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2021
  • DocketReply To Opposition To Motion For Order Deeming Admissions Admitted; Declaration Of James W. Bates; Filed by: Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2021
  • DocketOpposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Deemed Admitted Order; Filed by: John Miller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketMotion to Deem RFA's Admitted; Filed by: Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: John Miller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 01/28/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
2 More Docket Entries
  • 05/12/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: John Miller (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 04/21/2020; Service Cost: 100.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: John Miller, as Trustee of the John Miller And Patricia Grana Family Trust (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 04/21/2020; Service Cost: 100.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/14/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: John Miller (Defendant); John Miller, as Trustee of the John Miller And Patricia Grana Family Trust (Defendant); Patricia Grana, as Trustee of the John Miller And Patricia Grana Family Trust (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: John Miller (Defendant); John Miller, as Trustee of the John Miller And Patricia Grana Family Trust (Defendant); Patricia Grana, as Trustee of the John Miller And Patricia Grana Family Trust (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: John Miller (Defendant); John Miller, as Trustee of the John Miller And Patricia Grana Family Trust (Defendant); Patricia Grana, as Trustee of the John Miller And Patricia Grana Family Trust (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC02341    Hearing Date: January 28, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., January 28, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc. v. Miller, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02341 COMPL. FILED: 03-10-20

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 08-08-21

DISC. MOT. C/O: 08-23-21

TRIAL DATE: 09-07-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER THAT THE TRUTH OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED AND DOCUMENTS DEEMED GENUINE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc.

RESP. PARTY: Defendant John Miller

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc.’s Motion to deem Requests for Admission admitted is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also 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: Filed on January 5, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on January 20, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against John Miller aka Jack Miller, individually and as Trustee of the John Miller and Patricia Grana Family Trust (“Miller”) and Patricia Grana a Trustee of the John Miller and Patricia Grana Family Trust (“Grana”). Defendant Miller filed a general denial on June 12, 2020.

On October 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order that the Truth of Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Documents Deemed Genuine and Request for Sanctions (the “Motion”). Defendant Miller filed an Opposition on January 5, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on January 20, 2021.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Requests for Admission

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

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel states he served Defendant Miller’s counsel with Requests for Admission, Set One, on August 17, 2020 via regular mail. (Mot., Bates Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff had not received any responses to the Requests for Admission. (Id. at ¶ 5.) In Opposition, Defendant Miller provides evidence he served responses to the discovery on January 5, 2021. (Oppo., Romley Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) To the extent Plaintiff argues the responses are insufficient, it must file a motion to compel further responses.

Thus, Plaintiff’s request to deem the Requests for Admission admitted is DENIED AS MOOT.

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 to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff argues sanctions of $1,185.00 against Defendant Miller must be imposed because he failed to respond to the discovery request. (Mot., pp. 3:10-4:16.) In Opposition, however, Defendant Miller’s counsel states he never received the discovery request nor a letter nor call from Plaintiff’s attorney requesting a response to the discovery. (Oppo., Romley Decl., ¶ 2.) Had he received the Requests for Admission, Defendant’s counsel states he would have responded as both Plaintiff and Defendant have exchanged other written discovery without incident. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Because the Requests for Admission were never actually served, Defendant Miller argues, sanctions are not mandatory. (Id.) In Reply, Plaintiff ignores Defendant Miller’s argument that he was never actually served with the Requests for Admission. Instead, Plaintiff discusses the merits of the action and states that sanctions should be imposed on Defendant Miller because “[i]t is certain that if the court sanctioned [him], he and his attorney may get serious about payment of money that they owe to [Plaintiff.]” (Reply, pp. 2:3-22.)

As it is unclear whether Defendant Miller was actually served with the Requests for Admission, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Tri-Tech Restoration & Construction Co., Inc.’s Motion for Order that the Truth of Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.