This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/22/2022 at 02:55:28 (UTC).

RHONDA STRAUSS, ET AL. VS TEMPLAR TITAN, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA

Case Summary

On 05/05/2021 RHONDA STRAUSS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TEMPLAR TITAN, INC , A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Alhambra Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOEL L. LOFTON and JOHN J. KRALIK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0436

  • Filing Date:

    05/05/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOEL L. LOFTON

JOHN J. KRALIK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

STRAUSS RHONDA

STRAUSS MARK

Defendant

TEMPLAR TITAN INC. A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

STEARN MARTIN E.

Defendant Attorney

JORGENSEN RICHARD

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

7/29/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

8/24/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 08/24/2021

8/24/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 08/24/2021

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

9/16/2021: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

10/28/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Case Management Statement

11/29/2021: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

11/29/2021: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

12/6/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

12/29/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTEROGATORIES OBJECT TO OPPSITION TO MPTION

1/6/2022: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTEROGATORIES OBJECT TO OPPSITION TO MPTION

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/6/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES SPECI...)

1/12/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES SPECI...)

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

3/1/2022: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

3/1/2022: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY; DECLARATION OF MARTIN E. STEARN AND RHONDA STRAUSS IN SUPPORT THEREOF

3/9/2022: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY; DECLARATION OF MARTIN E. STEARN AND RHONDA STRAUSS IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES ; MEMORNADUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY; THE DECLARATIONS OF MARTINE. STEARN AND RHO

3/10/2022: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES ; MEMORNADUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY; THE DECLARATIONS OF MARTINE. STEARN AND RHO

Separate Statement

3/10/2022: Separate Statement

Proof of Service - No Service

3/21/2022: Proof of Service - No Service

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/21/2022
  • Hearing06/21/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department X at 150 West Commonwealth, Alhambra, CA 91801; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2022
  • Hearing06/09/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department X at 150 West Commonwealth, Alhambra, CA 91801; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2022
  • Hearing06/09/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department X at 150 West Commonwealth, Alhambra, CA 91801; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2022
  • DocketMotion to Continue Trial Date; Filed by RHONDA STRAUSS (Plaintiff); MARK STRAUSS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department X; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Production of Documents) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department X; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Special Interrogatories Set Three) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department X; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (Special Interrogatories, Set Three as to Templar Titan) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department X, Joel L. Lofton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Special Interrogatories Set Two) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories Set Two; ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department X; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Production of Documents) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 07/29/2021
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by RHONDA STRAUSS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by TEMPLAR TITAN, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by RHONDA STRAUSS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by RHONDA STRAUSS (Plaintiff); MARK STRAUSS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by RHONDA STRAUSS (Plaintiff); MARK STRAUSS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by RHONDA STRAUSS (Plaintiff); MARK STRAUSS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0436 Hearing Date: April 18, 2022 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: April 18, 2022 TRIAL DATE: June 21, 2022

CASE: RHONDA STRAUSS and MARK STRAUSS, v. TEMPLAR TITAN, INC., a corporation doing business in California and DOES 1 through 100.

CASE NO.: *******0436

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Rhonda Strauss and Mark Strauss

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Templar Titan, Inc

SERVICE: Motions to Compel filed on March 1, 2022, and March 9, 2022.

OPPOSITION: Filed March 28, 2022

REPLY: Filed March 30, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling a response to their special interrogatories set two and set three and requests for production set one.

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling further responses to special interrogatories, set three.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from Plaintiffs Rhonda Strauss and Mark Strauss’s (“Plaintiffs”) claim that Defendant Templar Titan, Inc., unlawfully placed tracking devices on Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Plaintiffs filed this complaint on May 5, 2021, alleging one cause of action for invasion of privacy.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel a response to their requests for production set one and special interrogatories set three are denied as moot.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a response to their special interrogatories set two is granted.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their special interrogatories set three is denied.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party making a discovery request may move for an order compelling a response if the party to whom the requests were made fails to serve a timely response, including for special interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b)) and requests for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd (b)). A party must serve a response within 30 days after service of a discovery request. (Code Civ. Proc. sections 2030.260, subd, (a) and 2031.260, subd.(a).)

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310).

DISCUSSION

Motion to Compel

Plaintiffs served their special interrogatories set two on January 6, 2022. (March 9, 2022, Motion to Compel, Stearn Decl. 1.) Plaintiffs served their requests for production of documents, set one, and special interrogatories, set three, on January 10, 2022. (March 1, 2022, Motion to Compel, Stearn Decl. 1.) Plaintiffs state that Defendant has failed to serve any responsive documents or responses to special interrogatories. (Id. 2.)

In opposition, Defendant asserts that it served the responses prior to Plaintiffs filing the motions at issue, that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer, and Plaintiffs failed to specify their request for sanction in their notice of motion.

According to the face of the motions, Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel a response to their special interrogatories on March 1, 2022, at 11:08 a.m. Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel a response to requests for production on March 1, 2022, at 12:06 p.m. Defendant emailed its responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories set three and request for production set one to on March 1, 2022, at 11:17 a.m. (Jorgensen Decl. 4.) Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses was filed prior to Defendant’s responses. However, Defendant has served responses, so Plaintiff’s motions are denied as moot.

However, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has still failed to serve any responses to their special interrogatories set two. (March 9, 2022, Motion to Compel, Stearn Decl. 2.) This issue is not addressed in Defendant’s opposition.

Defendant is ordered to provide responses to Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories set two.

Plaintiffs request sanctions related to their motion to compel. Plaintiffs are the prevailing party with respect to their special interrogatories set two. However, Plaintiffs confusingly filed their motion to compel responses to their special interrogatories set two after filing their motion to compel responses to their special interrogatories set three and after Defendants responded to set three. Further Plaintiffs repeatedly confuse the set number of the special interrogatories in their motions. For example, Plaintiffs submitted a reply on March 30, 2022, ostensibly replying to Defendant’s opposition regarding set two. However, the body of the reply refers to set three. Plaintiffs, by their own actions, have made it much more difficult to determine what discovery it is still waiting for. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification to deny sanctions.

Motion to Compel Further

After Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s motion for special interrogatories set three, Plaintiffs moved for an order compelling further responses.

Special Interrogatories No. 1: If you contend that you did not purchase the tracking/monitoring device TGT-#2451, IMEI:355154085122451, FCC 1D:ZKQ-BOT4GV, IC ID:8414B-BOT4GV, from Datablaze LLC state any and all facts that support that contention.

Special Interrogatories No. 2: Identify, by name, address and telephone number the individual or entity who employed, engaged, hired or otherwise contracted with you, TEMPLAR TITAN, INC., to place the tracking/monitoring device TGT-#2451, IMEI:355154085122451, FCC 1D:ZKQ-BOTdGV.

Defendant responds to each special interrogatory by stating, “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party has no record of purchasing the specified device.” Defendant then describes itself, states that it did not locate any records regarding independent contractors involved in the purchase or use of the trackers, and states that if an independent contractor had purchased the tracker outside of the scope of his or her employment with Defendant that the purchase would be “off the books”.

In their motion, Plaintiffs essentially argue that Defendant is lying. Plaintiffs point to various correspondence seeking to demonstrate that Defendant’s president and CEO, Lew Knopp, purchased the devices. Plaintiffs are essentially requesting this Court to weigh the parties’ credibility to determine a substantive fact of the case. The Court declines to do so.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further is denied.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel a response to their requests for production set one and special interrogatories set three are denied as moot.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a response to their special interrogatories set two is granted.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their special interrogatories set three is denied.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.

Dated: April 18, 2022

Joel L. Lofton

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer JORGENSEN RICHARD ALLEN