This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 01:10:29 (UTC).

ELINTON GRAMAJO VS JOE'S PIZZA ON SUNSET INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/20/2018 ELINTON GRAMAJO filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against JOE'S PIZZA ON SUNSET INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BARBARA A. MEIERS and RICHARD E. RICO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4779

  • Filing Date:

    02/20/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BARBARA A. MEIERS

RICHARD E. RICO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GRAMAJO ELINTON

Defendants and Respondents

JOE'S PIZZA ON SUNSET INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

JOE'S PIZZA ON SUNSET LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

NAVA ALFREDO

Defendant Attorney

LINDE DOUGLAS A.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

6/18/2018: Minute Order

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GIUSEPPE VITALE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ISURWTTED CONCURRENTLY WITH DECLARATION OF ALVRFDO NAVA AND EXHIBITS; MEMORANDUM

7/2/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GIUSEPPE VITALE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ISURWTTED CONCURRENTLY WITH DECLARATION OF ALVRFDO NAVA AND EXHIBITS; MEMORANDUM

NOTICE AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GHJSFPPE V1TALE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF ANT) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF S2,580 AGAINST DEFENDANT JOE'S PIZZA ON

7/2/2018: NOTICE AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF GHJSFPPE V1TALE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF ANT) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF S2,580 AGAINST DEFENDANT JOE'S PIZZA ON

DECLARATION OF ALFREDO NAVA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF?S MOTION TO COMPEL

9/14/2018: DECLARATION OF ALFREDO NAVA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF?S MOTION TO COMPEL

Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

12/17/2018: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

Request for Judicial Notice

1/31/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

1/31/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition

1/31/2019: Opposition

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/8/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/11/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/26/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

3/20/2019: Minute Order

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

3/20/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Opposition

5/15/2019: Opposition

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/15/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion for Leave to Amend

5/23/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend

Notice

5/28/2019: Notice

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

3/23/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

62 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (AND FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend AND FILE FIRST AMENDED C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Order (ORDER ON TENTATIVE RULING); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Opposition (Motion for Leave to Amend To File First Amended Complaint); Filed by Joe's Pizza On Sunset, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Notice (of Court order); Filed by Elinton Gramajo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Motion for Leave to Amend (and file first amended complaint); Filed by Elinton Gramajo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMEND...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Elinton Gramajo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
100 More Docket Entries
  • 03/23/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Joe's Pizza On Sunset, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • at 00:00 AM in Department 12; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Transferred to different departmnt) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-03-07 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Elinton Gramajo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA A. MEIERS, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Elinton Gramajo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694779    Hearing Date: January 22, 2021    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

ELINTON GRAMAJO

vs.

JOE’S PIZZA ON SUNSET, INC, et al.

Case No.: BC694779

Hearing Date: January 22, 2021

Plaintiff’s seven motions to compel further discovery responses are DENIED in part, GRANTED in part. Given the breadth of the motions, the Court has laid out its specific rulings within the opinion.

Plaintiff Elinton Gramajo (Plaintiff) filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc. and Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, LLC, alleging: (1) failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages; (2) failure to provide rest periods and meal periods; (3) failure to pay wages due at time of termination; (4) failure to pay wages due at time of termination; (4) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (5) unfair business practices.

An IDC was conducted on 10/1/2020.

Plaintiff now moves compel further responses from Defendant Giuseppe Vitale (Defendant) to seven discovery motions.

Discussion

In the IDC, Plaintiff raised concerns that: (1) verified responses had not been received, and (2) Defendant’s responses were not code compliant. It appears that the issue of verification has been resolved. However, the issue of code-compliancy remains.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s supplemental responses do not comply with the requirements in CCP section 2033.220..

Requests for Admission (Set Two)

Here, Defendant argues that no further responses are warranted because Plaintiff’s RFAs are in improper form. Specifically, Defendant argues that RFAs must be full and complete in and of themselves (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d)), and Plaintiff has failed to attach deposition testimony to accompany the RFAs.

In support, Defendant cites to Catanese v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1164.) There, the Court specifically noted:

An interrogatory is not “full and complete in and of itself” when resort must necessarily be made to other materials in order to complete the question.

(Catanese, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1164.)

Here, Plaintiff’s RFAs ask Defendant to admit whether or not various specific statements were made in deposition, yet no deposition testimony is attached. Accordingly, the RFA requires the respondent to resort to other materials in order to complete the question, and thus is not “full and complete in and of itself.” (Catanese, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1164; CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d)). The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s attempts to distinguish Catanese. First, there is no reason to believe Catanese is limited to special interrogatories as Plaintiff contends. The Catanese Court is interpreting the meaning of “full and complete in and of itself.” Plaintiff provides no reason as to why the meaning of what “full and complete in and of itself” means should be interpreted differently depending on the discovery form.

Moreover, while Plaintiff emphasizes that Defendant’s response does not fall within one of the response categories outline in section 2033.220, this ignores the fact that Plaintiff’s discovery requests are not code-complaint. If Plaintiff’s responses were full and complete in and of themselves then Defendant would be required to either admit, deny, or specify that there was insufficient information at the time to respond. (CCP § 2033.220.)

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s RFAs are not compliant with CCP section 2030.060. Plaintiff must first propound code-compliant requests, then Defendant must issue code-compliant responses.

Requests for Admission (Set One)

No.1: Defendant’s response is not code-compliant. (CCP § 2033.220.) Plaintiff’s RFA is not vague or ambiguous.

No. 2: Defendant’s response is not code-compliant. (CCP § 2033.220.) Plaintiff’s RFA is not vague or ambiguous.

No: 3: Defendant’s response is not code-compliant. (CCP § 2033.220.) Plaintiff’s RFA is not “incoherent.”

No. 7: Defendant’s response is not code-compliant. (CCP § 2033.220.) Plaintiff’s RFA is not “incoherent.”

No. 17: As set forth above, Plaintiff’s RFA is not code-compliant. (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d).)

No. 18: As set forth above, Plaintiff’s RFA is not code-compliant. (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d).)

No. 19: As set forth above, Plaintiff’s RFA is not code-compliant. (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d).)

No. 20: As set forth above, Plaintiff’s RFA is not code-compliant. (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d).)

No. 21: Defendant’s response is not code-compliant. (CCP § 2033.220.) Plaintiff’s RFA clearly refers to the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment.

No. 23: As set forth above, Plaintiff’s RFA is not code-compliant. (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d).)

No. 24: Defendant’s response is not code-complaint. If Defendant is unable to admit or deny, Defendant must specify whether he lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny. If so, Defendant must also state whether a reasonable inquiry has been made to acquire knowledge to permit it to admit or deny. (CCP § 2033.220, subd. (3)(c).)

No. 26: Defendant’s response is not code-compliant. (CCP § 2033.220.) Plaintiff’s RFA is not vague or ambiguous.

No. 28: As set forth above, Plaintiff’s RFA is not code-compliant. (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d).)

No. 30: As set forth above, Plaintiff’s RFA is not code-compliant. (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d).)

No. 32: As set forth above, Plaintiff’s RFA is not code-compliant. (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d).)

No. 34: Plaintiff’s RFA is relevant in that it seeks information concerning whether or not Defendant will seek to implead another party. Defendant must therefore provide a further response.

Form Interrogatories (Set One)

12.1: Defendant’s response is not code-compliant. (CCP § 2030.220.) Defendant must provide the name, address, and telephone of each individual.

12.2.: Defendant’s response is code-compliant. CCP section 2030.240 requires: “b) If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4.” Here, Defendant has clearly set forth the basis for the objection.

12.3: Defendant’s response is code-compliant. CCP section 2030.240 requires: “b) If an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4.” Here, Defendant has clearly set forth the basis for the objection.

12.4: Defendant’s response is not code-compliant. (CCP § 2030.220.) Defendant’s response is not as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party admits. (CCP section 2030.240, subd. (a).) Defendant may not avoid responding by generally referencing materials that have already been produced.

15.1: Defendant must provide the requested contact information. Defendant’s response is code-compliant in all other regards.

17.1: As set forth above in the RFA section, Plaintiff’s RFA is not code-compliant. (See CCP § 2030.060, subd. (d).)

Form Interrogatories (Set Three)

17.1: Defendant’s response is incomplete. Defendant must provide contact information as required by the request. Moreover, Defendant may not reference the deposition testimony to avoid having to issue a complete response to the request.

Special Interrogatories (Set Three)

Nos.28-29: Defendant’s responses are not evasive. Defendant’s response sets forth a method of calculation which is responsive to the question.

No. 31: Defendant’s response is improper. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the interrogatory is straight forward and clearly asks for a quantitative estimate of the unpaid overtime premiums.

No. 8: Defendant’s response is code-compliant. Defendant clearly identified the responsive document and stated that additional documents will be provided as they become available through investigation and discovery.

Requests for Production (Set One)

No. 9: Defendant’s response to is not code-compliant. (CCP § 2031.230.) Defendant initially responded that responsive documents would be provided (i.e., JPOS 001-JPOS 0097), only to provide an amended response stating the no responsive documents were found after diligent inquiry. CCP section 2031.230 requires that a representation of an inability to comply shall “specify whether the inability to complete is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” Defendant must so specify.

Supplemental Requests for Production

Defendant’s response is code-compliant. While Plaintiff argues that Defendant must specify the basis for their withholding, Defendant’s supplemental response expressly states that no additional responsive documents have been located. Defendant cannot specify a basis for withholding when Defendant has not stated that it is withholding anything.

Sanctions

Because the Court has granted and denied portions of Plaintiff’s motions to compel further, the Court declines to award either side sanctions at this time.

It is so ordered.

Dated: January , 2021

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  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 all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. 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.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.