This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/27/2021 at 06:35:27 (UTC).

U.S. FOODS , A CORPORATION VS THE MICHE MALL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/31/2019 U S FOODS , A CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against THE MICHE MALL GROUP, INC , A CORPORATION. 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 Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0099

  • Filing Date:

    10/31/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

U.S. FOODS A CORPORATION FKA U.S. SERVICE INC. A CORPORATION

Defendants

THE MICHE MALL GROUP INC. A CORPORATION DBA THE 20/20 WC

GUERRERO LEO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GARWACKI JR. RAY

 

Court Documents

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

9/2/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

9/2/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

9/30/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

11/10/2020: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration re: Accrured Interest

11/10/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration re: Accrured Interest

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

11/10/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

11/10/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Default Judgment - Default Judgment

11/23/2020: Default Judgment - Default Judgment

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

12/18/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Complaint - Complaint

10/31/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/31/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

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

10/31/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/31/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/31/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/18/2020
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketDefault judgment by Court entered for Plaintiff U.S. Foods , a Corporation FKA U.S. Service Inc., a Corporation against Defendant Leo Guerrero and Defendant The Miche Mall Group, Inc., a Corporation DBA The 20/20 WC on the Complaint filed by U.S. Foods , a Corporation on 10/31/2019 for damages of $10,148.52, attorney fees of $694.45, interest of $3,855.00, and costs of $490.00 for a total of $15,187.97.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketDefault Judgment; Signed and Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: The Miche Mall Group, Inc., a Corporation (Defendant); Leo Guerrero (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Default Judgment: As To Parties changed from Leo Guerrero (Defendant), The Miche Mall Group, Inc., a Corporation (Defendant) to The Miche Mall Group, Inc., a Corporation (Defendant), Leo Guerrero (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 11/23/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 11/23/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketDeclaration re: Accrured Interest; Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: The Miche Mall Group, Inc., a Corporation (Defendant); Service Date: 07/30/2020; Service Cost: 40.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Leo Guerrero (Defendant); Service Date: 07/30/2020; Service Cost: 80.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: The Miche Mall Group, Inc., a Corporation (Defendant); Leo Guerrero (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: The Miche Mall Group, Inc., a Corporation (Defendant); Leo Guerrero (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: U.S. Foods , a Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: The Miche Mall Group, Inc., a Corporation (Defendant); Leo Guerrero (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10099    Hearing Date: July 16, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 233.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s request to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is also GRANTED.

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: None filed as of July 14, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 14, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff Mario Roberto Ramos dba Ramos Filing N Typing Service (“Plaintiff”) filed an action, in pro per, for breach of contract and intentional tort against Defendant Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC (“Defendant”). On May 23, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On December 10, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response to Form/Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”).

On March 3, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s request to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions of $460.00 within thirty (30) days of service of notice of the order. (3/3/20 Minute Order.) However, Defendant’s requests to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and request to deem Requests for Admission admitted against Plaintiff were continued for failure to pay the appropriate number of filing fees. (Id.)

On March 3, 2020, Defendant paid one $60.00 filing fee, and on March 5, 2020, it paid two additional $60.00 filing fees.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. Special Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on October 8, 2019 via regular mail. (Mot., Freidman Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs. 2, 3.) On November 7, 2019, Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension up to and including November 22, 2019 to respond. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. 6) After not receiving responses by the extension deadline, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff an email regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id.) As of the date of this Motion, Defendant did not receive any responses to the discovery. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

  1. 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.)

Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission, Set One, on October 8, 2019 via regular mail. (Mot., Freidman Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 4.) As noted above, on November 7, 2019, Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension up to and including November 22, 2019 to respond. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. 6) After not receiving any responses by the extension deadline, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff an email regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id.) As of the date of this Motion, Defendant did not receive any responses. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

  1. Sanctions

Sanctions were previously awarded in the amount of $460.00 for bringing this single discovery motion. (3/3/20 Minute Order.) Thus, the Court does not award any additional sanctions.

  1. Conclusion & Order

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Pacific Centrex Datavo, LLC’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant’s request to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted against Plaintiff is also GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where US FOODS, INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GARWACKI JR. RAY