Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records defendants are represented by attorney Robert Rucci of Haight Brown and Bonesteel who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC640656 Hearing Date: April 09, 2018 Dept: 92

JUDY PORTONE,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

AVENUE 31, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC640656

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

April 9, 2018

Plaintiff, Judy Portone filed this action against Defendants, Avenue 31, et al. for premises liability on 11/15/16. Defendants, Montgomery Management Company, et al. (“MMC”) answered and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants, 8630 Sunset Plaza, LLC dba Avenue 31 and Stefano Frittella on 3/21/17. On 5/09/17, MMC filed proof of service of the cross-complaint reflecting both Cross-Defendants were served on 4/19/18. On 7/06/17, the Clerk entered Cross-Defendants’ defaults.

On 5/12/17 MMC propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs on both Cross-Defendants (after they were served with the summons and cross-complaint but before their defaults were entered).

On 12/18/17, the parties filed a stipulation and order to set aside the defaults.

On 3/08/18, MMC filed these two motions to compel. MMC contends its attorney contacted Cross-Defendants’ attorney several times after their default was set aside to ask for discovery responses, but Cross-Defendants did not serve responses.

On 3/23/18, Cross-Defendants timely filed and served opposition to the motions. Attorney Rucci declares he first learned of the discovery at issue on 3/01/18, only a week before the motions were filed. He declares he promptly indicated an intent to comply “as soon as possible.”

On 3/29/18, MMC timely filed and served a reply to the opposition. In the reply (as well as in the moving declaration), attorney Constantinides declares that on 1/22/18 his firm sent Rucci an email with the subject discovery attached and requested responses without objection within 30 days. He declares he got no reply. He also declares that on 2/28/18 he sent Rucci another email about the discovery and got no reply. He further declares that on 3/1/18 he sent another email to Rucci warning him that motions to compel would be forthcoming as no responses had been receive. On the same day, Rucci replied saying he had not seen any discovery. Constantinides declares that he then forwarded to Rucci the 1/22/18 email with the discovery attached. Finally, he declares that on 3/23/18, Cross-Defendants served responses, but the responses are unverified and contain improper objections.

Note the Court has not reviewed the unauthorized subsequent (i.e. after the reply) filing of either side.

While it is true that Cross-Defendants were not represented at the time, the discovery propounded was code-compliant and responses were required within thirty days; absent timely responses, Cross-Defendants were required to move for an order relieving them from the waiver of objections or to serve responses without objections. CCP §§2030.290, 2031.300. Since they did neither the motions to compel are granted in full. Cross-Defendants are ordered to serve verified responses without objection within 10 days.

The final issue is whether sanctions should be imposed. Sanctions are mandatory unless Cross-Defendants show good cause or substantial justification to avoid sanctions. §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). It is undisputed that MMC served the discovery on Cross-Defendants in May 2017. It is further undisputed that MMC’s attorney sent the discovery to attorney Rucci on 1/22/18 asking for responses without objection within 30 days and that there was no reply. There were further efforts to get the responses before the motions were filed. It is also undisputed that no responses were served before the motions were filed on 3/8/18. The Court therefore finds imposition of sanctions is appropriate.

MMC seeks sanctions in the amount of $1620/motion. Counsel bills at the rate of $195/hour. The Court awards the requested .5 hours to meet and confer. The Court awards one hour to prepare each form discovery motion. The Court awards one hour to prepare the joint reply to the opposition. The Court awards the requested three hours to appear at the hearing; the appearance time is only awarded once. The Court therefore awards 6.5 hours of attorney time at the requested rate of $195/hour, or $1267.50 in attorneys’ fees. The Court also awards two filing fees of $60 each, or $120 in costs.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Cross-Defendants and their attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to MMC, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1387.50, within twenty days.

Moving parties to give notice.