Lawzilla Additional Information: This case may have settled and no final order issued

Case Number: BC714389 Hearing Date: September 09, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

israel sumale,

Plaintiff,

v.

michael sheerin, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC714389

Hearing Date: September 9, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel discovery responses

Defendants Michael Sheerin and Kimberly Egan (“Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Israel Sumale (“Plaintiff”) to: Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”), Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”), and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”). Defendants also move to deem admitted the matters specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFA”). The motions are granted.

Defendants served the FROG, SROG, and RPD on Plaintiff by mail on October 23, 2018. Defendants granted Plaintiff extensions of time to respond to January 4, 2019. As of the filing date of these motions, Plaintiff has not served responses. Plaintiff does not oppose the motions, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that Plaintiff has complied with his discovery obligations. Accordingly, the motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendants’ FROG, SROG, and RPD, without objections, within 30 days of service of this order.

Defendants also move to deem the matters specified in the RFA. Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding 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. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) In this case, Defendants served the RFA on Plaintiff by mail on April 29, 2019 by mail. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by June 3, 2019. As of the filing date of the motion to deem admitted, Plaintiff has not responded to the RFA. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Defendants seeks sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ discovery a misuse of the discovery process. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record, Joshua J. Franklin, in the amount of $1,115, which represents five hours of attorney time at $175 per hour, plus four filing fees of $60 each.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within 30 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFA as of this date. Plaintiff and his attorney of record, Joshua J. Franklin, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,115 to Defendants, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: September 9, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court