AUXILIADORA GUITERREZ VS TACOS EL LIMONCITO ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693021    Hearing Date: October 27, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Auxiliadora Guiterrez filed this action against Defendants, Tacos El Limoncito, et al. for premises liability and negligence on 2/07/18.

Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one, and to deem request for admissions, set one, admitted on 4/14/20. On 4/24/20, the court set the hearing for Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents and motion to compel responses to form interrogatories for 10/27/20. (Min. Order 4/24/20, Court Order re: Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel.) However, it appears the court inadvertently did not set Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories or motion to deem request for admissions admitted for hearing. The court’s records do not show these motions have been taken off calendar or otherwise scheduled for a different date.

Moreover, the court’s 4/24/20 order which set Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents for hearing on 10/27/20 ordered moving party, Plaintiff, to give notice of the instant hearing date. As of 10/20/20, no such notice has been filed with this court.

Based on the foregoing, and to ensure Defendant receives proper notice of the subject motions to compel and deem admitted, the hearing on the motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents is continued to _________________ at 1:30 p.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Further, the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories and motion to deem request for admissions admitted are set for hearing on the same date. If this date is not an available date for Plaintiff, Plaintiff may use the online reservation system to change the hearing date to the next available convenient date in the system.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 27^th day of October, 2020

Case Number: BC693021    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Auxiliadora Guiterrez filed this action against Defendants, Tacos El Limoncito, et al. for premises liability and negligence on 2/07/18. The case was originally set for trial on 8/07/19. On 7/24/19, the parties appeared for an FSC. The parties reported not ready for trial, and the Court continued the FSC to 8/01/19 (the trial date). On 8/01/19, the Court continued the trial date to 2/05/20 per oral stipulation. The minute order was silent concerning extending the discovery cut-off.

On 1/21/20, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel and motion to deem RFAs admitted, setting them for hearing on 2/24/20. On 2/04/20, Plaintiff appeared ex parte seeking an order continuing the trial date. The Court found Plaintiff gave notice of the ex parte application, noted the lack of opposition, and continued the trial to 6/19/20. The Court ordered the discovery and motion cut-off dates to follow the new dates.

Opposition to the 2/24/20 motions was due on or before 2/07/20. The Court prepared a tentative ruling granting the motions, as they were unopposed. However, on 2/18/20, Defendants filed a grossly tardy opposition to the motions. The Court continued the hearing on the motions to 3/02/20 to consider the untimely opposition.

Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 2/24/20. However, because the continuance was not made until 2/24/20, it has not been possible for Plaintiff to file a timely reply brief. To date, the Court has not received a reply brief.

The sole argument made in the opposition is that discovery is cut off, and therefore Defendants need not respond to the outstanding discovery. This is a somewhat unique situation. At the time Plaintiff propounded the discovery, discovery was cut off, and the discovery was improper. However, after Plaintiff propounded the discovery and after Plaintiff filed the discovery motions, the Court re-opened discovery to follow the new trial date.

The Court is not comfortable granting the motion to deem RFAs admitted under the circumstances, as the relief is too extreme. The Court is also not comfortable imposing sanctions. Because this is a unique situation, because the parties did not provide authority concerning how to proceed in such a situation, and because the Court knows of no on point authority, the Court is inclined to exercise its equitable powers to fashion a remedy.

The Court will deem all of the discovery to have been propounded on today’s hearing date, 3/02/20. Defendants will have thirty days, per Code, to respond to the discovery. Objections are not waived, and Defendants are not being compelled to respond. The Court strongly encourages Counsel to resolve any issues relating to this discovery without further law and motion practice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: BC693021    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Auxiliadora Guiterrez filed this action against Defendants, Tacos El Limoncito, et al. for premises liability and negligence on 2/07/18.  The case was originally set for trial on 8/07/19.  On 7/24/19, the parties appeared for an FSC.  The parties reported not ready for trial, and the Court continued the FSC to 8/01/19 (the trial date).  On 8/01/19, the Court continued the trial date to 2/05/20 per oral stipulation.  The minute order was silent concerning extending the discovery cut-off. 

On 1/21/20, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel and motion to deem RFAs admitted, setting them for hearing on 2/24/20.  On 2/04/20, Plaintiff appeared ex parte seeking an order continuing the trial date.  The Court found Plaintiff gave notice of the ex parte application, noted the lack of opposition, and continued the trial to 6/19/20.  The Court ordered the discovery and motion cut-off dates to follow the new dates.

Opposition to the 2/24/20 motions was due on or before 2/07/20.  The Court prepared a tentative ruling granting the motions, as they were unopposed.  However, on 2/18/20, Defendants filed a grossly tardy opposition to the motions.  The Court continued the hearing on the motions to 3/02/20 to consider the untimely opposition. 

Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 2/24/20.  However, because the continuance was not made until 2/24/20, it has not been possible for Plaintiff to file a timely reply brief.  To date, the Court has not received a reply brief.

The sole argument made in the opposition is that discovery is cut off, and therefore Defendants need not respond to the outstanding discovery.  This is a somewhat unique situation.  At the time Plaintiff propounded the discovery, discovery was cut off, and the discovery was improper.  However, after Plaintiff propounded the discovery and after Plaintiff filed the discovery motions, the Court re-opened discovery to follow the new trial date. 

The Court is not comfortable granting the motion to deem RFAs admitted under the circumstances, as the relief is too extreme.  The Court is also not comfortable imposing sanctions.  Because this is a unique situation, because the parties did not provide authority concerning how to proceed in such a situation, and because the Court knows of no on point authority, the Court is inclined to exercise its equitable powers to fashion a remedy. 

The Court will deem all of the discovery to have been propounded on today’s hearing date, 3/02/20.  Defendants will have thirty days, per Code, to respond to the discovery.  Objections are not waived, and Defendants are not being compelled to respond.  The Court strongly encourages Counsel to resolve any issues relating to this discovery without further law and motion practice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. 

Case Number: BC693021    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Auxiliadora Guiterrez’s Motions to Compel are Granted.  Defendants is ordered to serve verified responses to the outstanding discovery, without objections, within twenty days.  Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted is Granted.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,273.60.  Defendants and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1,273.60, within twenty days.

Plaintiff propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, RFAs, and RPDs on Defendants on April 2, 2018.  To date, Defendants have not served responses.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are granted.  Defendants are ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within twenty days.  CCP §§2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).  Plaintiff also moves to deem RFAs admitted.  The motion is granted.  CCP §2033.280(b).

Sanctions are mandatory.  §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).  Plaintiff seeks sanctions in varying amounts in connection with the four motions.  The Court finds one hour to prepare each of these motions to compel is sufficient to compensate Plaintiff.  The Court awards 1 hour to appear at the hearing on the motion.  The Court therefore awards a total of 5 hours of attorney time at $200/hour, or $1,000 in attorneys’ fees.  The Court also awards four filing fees of $68.40 each, or $273.60 in costs.  Sanctions are sought against and awarded against Defendants and its attorney of record, jointly and severally.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at SSCDEPT31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.