This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/16/2019 at 17:07:38 (UTC).

NANCY PERRY VS MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/09/2017 NANCY PERRY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2825

  • Filing Date:

    11/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PERRY NANCY

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

MCNULTY NIELSEN

MARRIOTT MARINA DEL REY

ARTISTS VIEW ENTERTAINMENT

DOES 1 TO 100

MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES INC

NIELSEN MCNULTY

MILANI STEFANO DOE 3

HMH MARINA LLC

HOLLYWOOD CLOSE-UPS INC. DOE 4

SHEEHAN DAVID DOE 2

CCMH MARINA LLC

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES INC

HMH MARINA LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BURKE SEAN M.

DORDICK GARY A

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LOUREIRO KARL R. ESQ.

WAYNE ERIC J. ESQ.

VASQUEZ OLIVER

HAUSER JOHN A. LAW OFFICES OF

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

WAYNE ERIC JEFFREY

 

Court Documents

Unknown

3/15/2018: Unknown

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

3/28/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Proof of Service

4/3/2018: Proof of Service

Proof of Service

4/30/2018: Proof of Service

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

5/2/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

5/17/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT DAVID SHEEHANS ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

5/25/2018: DEFENDANT DAVID SHEEHANS ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

7/6/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

Cross-Complaint

4/8/2019: Cross-Complaint

Summons

4/8/2019: Summons

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/12/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Substitution of Attorney

5/6/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Cross-Complaint

5/16/2019: Cross-Complaint

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

5/30/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1/22/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

12/20/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE S & C

11/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE S & C

SUMMONS

11/9/2017: SUMMONS

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/30/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by CCMH MARINA, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Summons (Cross-Complaint); Filed by MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES INC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Answer; Filed by MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by NANCY PERRY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by NANCY PERRY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Oliver Vasquez (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Hollywood Close-Ups, Inc. (Doe 4) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 12/20/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE S & C

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by NANCY PERRY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by NANCY PERRY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE S & C

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by NANCY PERRY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE S & C

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by NANCY PERRY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE; AND 2. PREMISES LIABILITY

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC682825    Hearing Date: November 14, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production (Both Set One); Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff Nancy Perry (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Marriot Hotel Services, Inc., CCMH Marina, LLC (erroneously sued as Marriot Marina Del Rey), and McNulty Nielsen alleging negligence and premises liability for falling off of a stage on May 1, 2016.

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint renaming Doe 2 as Defendant David Sheehan and Doe 3 as Defendant Stefano Milani.

On May 2, 2018, the Court approved an amendment to the complaint renaming Defendant Marriot Marina Del Rey as Defendant CCMH Marina, LLC.

On May 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint renaming Doe 4 as Hollywood Close-Ups, Inc.

On January 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint renaming Doe 5 as HMH Marina LLC.

On April 8, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant HMH Marina LLC filed a cross-complaint against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Hollywood Close-Ups and David Sheehan and Cross-Defendants McNulty Nielson, Inc. and Artists View Entertainment, Inc. seeking equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and comparative indemnity and alleging a breach of contract.

On May 26, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marriot Hotel Services, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Hollywood Close-Ups, Inc., David Sheehan, Artists View Entertainment, Inc., and McNulty Nielsen, Inc. seeking equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and comparative indemnity.

On October 11, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant CCMH Marina, LLC filed motions to compel Defendant/Cross-Defendant David Sheehan to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production (Both Set One) and a motion to deem the matters in Requests for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant/Cross-Defendant David Sheehan.

Trial is set for March 30, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant/Cross-Complainant CCMH Marina, LLC (“Moving Party”) asks the Court to compel Defendant/Cross-Defendant David Sheehan (“Opposing Party”) to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production (Both Set One) due to Opposing Party’s failure to provide timely verified responses.

Moving Party also requests that the Court deem the matters within Requests for Admissions (Set One) as true against Opposing Party based on Opposing Party’s failure to provide timely verified responses.

Moving Party further asks the Court to impose monetary sanctions of $4,335 against Opposing Party and his counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “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).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On May 2, 2019, Moving Party served Form Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admission (All Set One) on Opposing Party by U.S. mail.  (All Three Declarations of Eric J. Wayne (“Wayne Decl.”), ¶ 2-3, Exh. 1.)  Moving Party gave one extension through June 20, 2019 to provide verified responses in which Opposing Party could include objections.  (Wayne Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. 3.) ¶¶ 6-7.)  Moving Party granted a second extension for Opposing Party to provide verified responses without objections by July 26, 2019.  (Wayne Decl., 9, Exh. 5-6.)  On July 26, 2019, Opposing Party served unverified responses without objections to Moving Party.  (Wayne Decl., 10-11, Exh. 7.)  Moving Party had not received verified responses without objections as of the signing of Eric J. Wayne’s declarations on October 11, 2019.  (Wayne Decl., ¶¶ 12-13.)

Opposing Party argues that the July 26, 2019 responses were sufficient in meeting Opposing Party’s obligations under the Discovery Act.  (Vasquez Decl., 2, Exh. A.)  However, these responses include objections and are unverified.  Moving Party did not allow objections in granting an extension for Opposing Party to serve verified responses by July 26, 2019.  And even if objections were allowed, Opposing Party’s unverified responses are akin to no responses at all.  (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) as opposed to motions to compel further, are the proper procedural vehicle to bring Moving Party’s complaints before the Court.

Opposing Party also argues that the responses were served without verifications on July 26, 2019 because Opposing Party’s advanced cancer condition has made it extremely difficult for him to participate in the discovery process.  (Vasquez Decl., 3.)  The Court sympathizes with Opposing Party’s ailment.  It is clear that this is a substantial justification for Opposing Party’s actions thereby making the imposition of sanctions unjust.  However, the Code of Civil Procedure does not allow for such an unfortunate situation to relieve Opposing Party of his discovery obligations.

Therefore, the motions are GRANTED.

Opposing Party is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Moving Party’s Form Interrogatories and Request for Production (Set One) within 30 days of this ruling.

The Court deems the matters within Moving Party’s Request for Admissions (Set One) as true, unless Opposing Party presents evidence of substantial compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c) at the time of the hearing.

Moving Party’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.