This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/06/2022 at 14:57:24 (UTC).

KAYLA GIPSON VS FIRST TO SERVE, INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/30/2020 KAYLA GIPSON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against FIRST TO SERVE, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8725

  • Filing Date:

    07/30/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GIPSON KAYLA

Defendants

FIRST TO SERVE INC.

WATTS LABOR COMMUNITY ACTION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

YEAGER KENNETH

Defendant Attorney

CANADA RICHARD BRENT

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT); ORDER TO SHOW...)

1/4/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT); ORDER TO SHOW...)

Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL --NOT ENTERED

10/7/2021: Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL --NOT ENTERED

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

12/2/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Notice of Ruling

12/2/2021: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO OSC: RE: MINOR'S COMPROMISE AND FAILURE TO APPEAR; DECLARATION OF KENNETH C. YEAGER

12/3/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO OSC: RE: MINOR'S COMPROMISE AND FAILURE TO APPEAR; DECLARATION OF KENNETH C. YEAGER

Notice - NOTICE RE PLAINTIFF'S NON OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

9/15/2021: Notice - NOTICE RE PLAINTIFF'S NON OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Notice - NOTICE RE PLAINTIFF'S NON OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

9/15/2021: Notice - NOTICE RE PLAINTIFF'S NON OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Notice - NOTICE RE PLAINTIFF'S NON OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

9/15/2021: Notice - NOTICE RE PLAINTIFF'S NON OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Notice of Settlement

9/15/2021: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)

9/17/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)

Opposition - OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF KENNETH C. YEAGER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

9/17/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF KENNETH C. YEAGER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT) OF 09/17/2021

9/17/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT) OF 09/17/2021

Opposition - OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF KENNETH C. YEAGER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

9/17/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF KENNETH C. YEAGER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Opposition - OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF KENNETH C. YEAGER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

9/17/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF KENNETH C. YEAGER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT FIRST TO SERVE, INC.'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER ESTABLIS...)

9/1/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT FIRST TO SERVE, INC.'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER ESTABLIS...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL

8/12/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Reply - REPLY REPLY NON OPPOSITION

8/25/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY NON OPPOSITION

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION

8/25/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/04/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Why Plaintiff's Counsel has not Submitted a Petition for a Minor's Compromise) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Why Counsel for Plaintiff Should not be Sanctioned $250.00 for Their Failure to Appear on 12/02/2021) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement); Order to Show...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2021
  • DocketOpposition (Plaintiffs Opposition to OSC: RE: Minor's Compromise and Failure to Appear; Declaration of Kenneth C. Yeager); Filed by Kayla Gipson, a minor through her guardian ad litem Monique Gipson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by First to Serve, Inc. (Defendant); Watts Labor Community Action (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
38 More Docket Entries
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by First to Serve, Inc. (Defendant); Watts Labor Community Action (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Kayla Gipson, a minor through her guardian ad litem Monique Gipson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Kayla Gipson, a minor through her guardian ad litem Monique Gipson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Kayla Gipson, a minor through her guardian ad litem Monique Gipson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedure and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketApplication And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Kayla); Filed by Kayla Gipson, a minor through her guardian ad litem Monique Gipson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Kayla Gipson, a minor through her guardian ad litem Monique Gipson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Kayla Gipson, a minor through her guardian ad litem Monique Gipson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******8725 Hearing Date: September 1, 2021 Dept: 28

Watts Labor Community Action's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions

Having reviewed the motion and Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff Kayla Gipson (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Monique Gipson, filed a Complaint against Defendants First to Serve, Inc.; Watts Labor Community Action; and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, alleging 1 causes of action arising from injuries sustained from a slip-and-fall on Defendants’ property.

On June 3, 2021, Defendant Watts Labor Community Action (WLCA”) filed this instant motion.

Trial is set for January 27, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant WLCA requests the Court grant the motion and deem the requests for admission admitted. Defendant WLCA additionally requests $885.00 in monetary sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Admissions:

Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties. Code Civ. Proc. ; 2033.010.

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

  1. The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

  2. 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 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

  3. The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.

DISCUSSION

Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

Defendant WLCA served discovery requests, including requests for admission, on March 29, 2021. (Ex. A.) Responses were due on April 30, 2021. On May 5, 2021, Defendant WLCA sent a meet & confer letter to Plaintiff regarding the missing responses. (Ex. B.) Plaintiff apparently provided responses to the requests for admission filed by Co-Defendant First to Serve, Inc., but failed to respond to the requests for admission from Defendant WLCA, which differ in that they relate to the liability of the separate Defendant. Plaintiff also has filed an Opposition to Co-Defendant FTS’ motions, but not to Defendant WCLA’s instant motion.

If a party to whom Requests for Admissions were directed fails to respond, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code of Civ. Proc. ; 2033.280(b).) Here, Plaintiff has failed to serve responses and has failed to file any Opposition.

The motion is GRANTED.

Request for Monetary Sanctions

A monetary discovery sanction may be based not only on attorney's fees and costs, but also on any other reasonable expenses incurred. (Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) Although monetary discovery sanctions are mandatory, the award may not exceed the reasonable expenses incurred. (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262–263.). The term “reasonable expenses” includes other costs directly related to the discovery misuse. (Cf. Brewster v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 701, 711.)

The Court finds Defendants’ request is unreasonable. Defendants’ counsel requests $885.00 in total sanctions, broken down as follows:

Motion Drafting: 3 hours @ $165.00/hour x 1 motion = $495.00 Anticipated Review + Reply: 2 hours @ 165.00/hour x 1 motion = $330.00 Motion Fee: $60.00 x 1 motion = $60.00

Total: = $885.00.

Here, no Opposition was filed, so counsel need not spend additional time briefing an argument in Reply.

The Court will award $556.65. This is compensation for 3 hours of motion drafting at a rate of $165.00/hour, as well as $60.00 for the cost of the motion and $1.65 for the credit card surcharge.

The Request for Sanctions is GRANTED BUT REDUCED in the sum of $556.65.

CONCLUSION

Defendant WLCA’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED.

Defendant WLCA’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED BUT REDUCED to $556.65.

Plaintiff and her counsel of record are ordered to pay the sanctioned sum to Defendant WLCA or their counsel within 30 days of this ruling.

Defendant WLCA is ordered to give notice.

________________________________________________________________________

FTS' Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted; Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents; Request for Sanctions

Having reviewed the motions, Opposition, and Reply, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff Kayla Gipson (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Monique Gipson, filed a Complaint against Defendants First to Serve, Inc.; Watts Labor Community Action; and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, alleging 1 causes of action arising from injuries sustained from a slip-and-fall on Defendants’ property.

On June 3, 2021, Defendant First to Serve, Inc. (FTS) filed these instant motions.

On August 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Opposition.

On August 25, 2021, Defendant FTS filed a Reply.

Trial is set for January 27, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant FTS requests the Court grant the motions compelling Plaintiff to respond to the request for production of documents and deeming the requests for admission admitted. Defendant FTS also requests $1,605.00 in monetary sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Admissions:

Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties. Code Civ. Proc. ; 2033.010.

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

  1. The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

  2. 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 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

  3. The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.

Production:

A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made. Code Civ. Proc. ; 2031.010, subd. (b).

Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response. Code Civ. Proc. ; 2031.260, subd. (a).

Sanctions:

“Failing to respond or submit to an authorized discovery method” is a misuse of the discovery process, for which sanctions may be imposed. California Code of Civil Procedure ; 2023.010(d).

If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Code Civ. Proc. ; 2023.030(a)

DISCUSSION

Motions

Defendant FTS served the discovery requests upon Plaintiff by electronic correspondence and by U.S. Mail on February 3, 2021. (Ex. A.) Responses were due no later than March 10, 2021. On March 19, 2021, Defendant FTS’s counsel attempted to meet & confer with Plaintiff’s counsel to resolve the issue. (Ex. B.) On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff provided responses to other requests, but not to the requests for production or admission. As of the time of filing of the instant motions, Plaintiff had not served responses to the discovery requested by the instant motions.

Plaintiff informs the Court that responses were served on August 11, 2021. The motions are now moot and the only consideration before the Court is sanctions.

The motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

Request for Sanctions

A monetary discovery sanction may be based not only on attorney's fees and costs, but also on any other reasonable expenses incurred. (Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) Although monetary discovery sanctions are mandatory, the award may not exceed the reasonable expenses incurred. (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262–263.). The term “reasonable expenses” includes other costs directly related to the discovery misuse. (Cf. Brewster v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 701, 711.)

Defendant FTS argues that Defendant needed to bring the motions after months of non-responsiveness from Plaintiff, and requests sanctions to cover the costs. The Court finds that such sanctions are appropriate, but that Defendant FTS’ requested sum is unreasonable. Defendant FTS’ counsel requests $1,605.00 in total sanctions between the two motions, alleging a total of 4.5 hours spent on drafting, 3.5 hours anticipated to review the Oppositions and Reply, and 1 additional hour for appearing at the hearing. Defendant also requested $120.00 for the motion fees.

Here, the motions are substantially similar. In light of that, it is unclear why counsel requests 1.5 hours for one motion and 3 hours for the other. The Court will not duplicate sanctions for similar motions. Here, the Court will only award 3 hours’ worth of motion drafting costs. Defendant also contends that Defendant will spend 1.5 hours reviewing and responding to the Opposition to one motion and 2 hours reviewing and responding to the other. Here, Plaintiff only filed one 2-page Opposition to both motions, contending that the motions are moot and sanctions should be limited. Defendant in turn filed only one 3-page Reply. As such, the Court will only award 1.5 hours’ worth of billing time. The Court will award 1 hour’s worth of time for appearing at the hearing on the motion. The Court will award $60.00 for each motion’s filing fee and $1.65 for each motion’s surcharge. This totals $1,030.80, a reduction of $574.20.

Plaintiff notes in their Opposition that sanctions are inappropriate when they are used only as punishment. The Court agrees, and it appears Defendant’s counsel does too, as the only sanctions requested (and awarded) are for the costs of bringing the motion following Plaintiff’s undue delay in responding to discovery.

The Request for Sanctions is GRANTED BUT REDUCED to the sum of $1,030.80.

CONCLUSION

Defendant FTS’ Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents are DENIED AS MOOT.

Defendant FTS’ Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED BUT REDUCED to a total sum of $1,030.80.

Plaintiff and her counsel of record are ordered to pay the sanctioned sum to Defendant FTS or their counsel within 30 days of this ruling.

Defendant FTS is ordered to give notice.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where First to Serve, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where WATTS LABOR COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer YEAGER KENNETH