On 10/11/2017 MIORIAM AVELAR ARVIZU filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against AMMADIS 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 TERESA A. BEAUDET and DANIEL J. BUCKLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
TERESA A. BEAUDET
DANIEL J. BUCKLEY
ARVIZU MIRIAM AVELAR
DOES 1 TO 50
AMMADIS INC DBA GAUCHO GRILL
BOYAJIAN ERIC A. ESQ.
RUIZ BRANDON K
HENNIG ROBERT ALAN
BOYAJIAN ERIC ALBERT
STRANGE GORDON CHESTER
WOODS TIFFANY SHANAE`
DECKER ALYSON CLAIRE
5/1/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION DEMANDS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
5/9/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -
5/10/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMMADIS, INC.'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITIONTO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ; ETC
5/10/2018: DEFENDANT AMMADIS, INC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITLES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; ETC
6/1/2018: IN FORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ("IDC") STATEMENT
9/27/2018: PLAINTIFF'S - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S "AT WILL" EMPLOYMENT STATUS
9/27/2018: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.3: TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM CALLING LUCIANA MIORIN AS A WITNESS AT TRIAL; DECLARATION OF AMARAS ZARGARIAN IN SUPPORT THEREOF
10/12/2018: Other - -
10/19/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
12/13/2018: Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)
1/16/2019: Notice of Ruling
2/28/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and ALl Re...)
3/4/2019: Proof of Personal Service
3/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE SUBMISSION OF TRIAL READINESS A...)
3/28/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO THE CHRIS MATTHEW GROUP, LLC
3/28/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6: TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT DEFENDANTS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; DECLARATION OF AMARAS ZARGARIAN IN SUPPORT THEREOF
4/11/2019: Answer - ANSWER AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS AMMADIS, INC. DBA GAUCHO GRILL, CINGULAR GROCERS AND CINGULAR HR TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST COMPLAINT
10/11/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT; ETC
Hearing12/09/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by AMMADIS INC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by CINGULAR HR (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by CINGULAR GROCERS (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (PLAINTIFF MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENAS AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,660.00; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARTION OF BRANDON RUIZ IN SUPPORT THEREOF) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473))); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS OF THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIANRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC679015 Hearing Date: August 24, 2020 Dept: 50
miriam avelar arvizu,
ammadis, inc., et al.,
August 24, 2020
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES – EMPLOYEMENT;
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES – GENERAL;
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION;
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff Miriam Avelar Arvizu (“Arvizu”) filed this employment action on October 11, 2017. Discovery in this action has been closed since October 9, 2018. On January 10, 2020, during a Trial Setting Conference, the Court noted that counsel for Defendant Cingular Grocers, Inc. (“Cingular”) indicated the need to “do some limited discovery” because “[t]he case has been pending for a while with possible need for an update.” (Decker Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, p. 2:4-7.) Counsel for Arvizu objected to “any reopening of discovery,” but, in response to the Court’s proposed of “a round of supplementals just to see if anything is new,” Counsel for Arvizu said they would “be okay with supplemental rogs or RFP’s.” He clarified that he would “be fine with supplementals, but not with reopening discovery.” (Decker Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, p. 2:8-17.) The January 10, 2020 minute order also reflects that the parties agreed to “supplemental interrogatories and/or request for production by 1/31/20.”
On January 21, 2020, Cingular served Form Interrogatories – General, Form Interrogatories – Employment Law, Supplemental Special Interrogatories, and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents (collectively, the “Additional Discovery”). (Decker Decl., ¶ 4, Exs. 3-6.) On February 25, 2020, Arvizu served objection-only responses to the discovery propounded by Cingular. (Decker Decl., ¶ 5, Exs. 7-10.) In response to every discovery request, Arvizu objected that the requests did not conform to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.070 or 2031.050 and that Cingular had not previously served any interrogatories or document requests, so there was nothing to supplement. Arvizu also objected that discovery was otherwise closed.
After attempts to meet and confer, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on July 8, 2020. (Decker Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.) At the IDC and in emails thereafter, the parties discussed potential resolutions to the discovery dispute, but the parties were ultimately unable to resolve the dispute. (Decker Decl., ¶ 9.)
Cingular now moves for an order compelling Arvizu to provide responses to the Additional Discovery. Arvizu opposes.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a) permits a propounding party to move for an order compelling a further response to a demand for inspection if the propounding party deems that a statement of compliance is incomplete, a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection must set forth specific facts showing good cause for the discovery sought and must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b).)
Unless a motion to compel further responses is filed and served within 45 days of the service of the verified response, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)
If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary 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., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)
It is apparent that neither the Court nor counsel for Cingular and Arvizu realized at the January 10, 2020 Trial Setting Conference that Cingular had, at that point, propounded no written discovery to Arvizu. Arvizu contends that she agreed only to a round of supplemental discovery requests based on the assumption that written discovery had been previously propounded. Arvizu takes the position that she never agreed to reopen discovery except for supplemental discovery as that term is defined in Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.070 and 2031.050. Cingular counters that its request was always limited to updated damages discovery, which would not have necessarily been covered by past discovery requests. Cingular argues that it would be severely prejudiced if it could not conduct this damages discovery, because Arvizu is expected to introduce evidence at trial that she has suffered lost income, lost future income, medical costs, and future medical costs.
During the Trial Setting Conference, neither the Court nor the parties referenced the Code of Civil Procedure when discussing the supplementation of damages information. As pointed out by Cingular, the provisions relied upon by Arvizu would not have worked at the time of the Trial Setting Conference since the discovery cut-off had already occurred, so there is no clear inference that the parties had to have sections 2030.070 and 2031.050 in mind.
The Court finds that the evidence demonstrates that the Court and the parties agreed to limited discovery for the purpose of eliciting damages evidence that had accrued since the discovery cutoff, and that the phrase “supplemental” was not discussed as meaning supplemental pursuant to the CCP, but rather supplemental in the sense of “since the discovery cutoff.” Because the discovery propounded does not fit squarely within the above definition, the Court orders the parties to further meet and confer via telephone or “in person” (either socially distanced or via Zoom or its equivalent) in an effort to agree upon revised discovery requests with this ruling in mind. The Court notes that the compromise proposed by counsel for Arvizu appears to be a reasonable place to begin the discussion, but the additional area raised by Cingular as to injuries and recoveries pertaining to other employment claims during the same period also should be considered. The Court is not limiting the parties to these two points in their meet and confer efforts.
The Court declines to award sanctions in connection with these motions, as the Court finds that the circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust.
Finally, the Court notes that it will vacate and reset the current trial and FSC dates pursuant to the Presiding Judge’s order that no jury trials will take place before January 4, 2021.
The Court denies the motions to compel without prejudice to Cingular’s propounding of revised written discovery and sets a discovery conference on ____, 2020 in Dept. 50 at ________ to discuss the results of the parties meet and confer efforts. Arvizu is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
DATED: August 24, 2020 ________________________________
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.070 provides that “a party may propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party in response to interrogatories.” Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.050 provides that “a party may propound a supplemental demand to inspect . . . any later acquired or discovered documents . . . in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases