Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Victor Block of the Block Law Group who is involved in the sanctions orders from the court.

Case Number: BC657106 Hearing Date: April 23, 2018 Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company

OPPOSITION: None

Plaintiff Leann Smith sues defendant Ford Motor Company for damages and rescission arising from “lemon law” allegations.

On April 7, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting six causes of action for statutory violations.

On March 19, 2018, defendant filed these opposed motion to compel initial responses to written discovery demands and deem RFAs admitted, and sanctions requests, and motion to continue trial.

Insufficient Filing Fees: Defendant improperly combined these two motions. One motion addresses form interrogatories, the other, special interrogatories. Defendant filed these two motions as one. The Court intends to order defendant to pay an additional $60 filing fee. The Court intends to admonish defendant for reserving only one hearing.

Motion to Compel Response to RFPs and Interrogatories Standard

A trial court may intervene when a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for production or interrogatories. CCP §§ 2031.300, 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403. A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. CCP § 2031.300(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404. The propounding party can move the trial court for an order compelling a party to respond to the discovery request. CCP §§ 2031.300(b), 2030.290(b); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404. Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a forty-five day time limit or a separate statement requirement, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.

RFAs Standard: A party may move for an order deeming admitted any matter specified in a request for admission and for sanctions. CCP § 2033.280(b). If a party untimely serves responses to requests for admission, it waives any objection including those based on privilege or work product. CCP § 2033.280(a). “The court shall make this order, 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.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

Analysis: Here, on November 8, 2017, defendant mail served the subject discovery demands on plaintiff. Kim Decls. ¶ 2, Exhs. A-B. Accordingly, plaintiff’s responses were due December 13, 2017. As of March 19, 2018, defendant received no responses. Kim Decls. ¶ 5. Therefore, defendant is entitled to an order compelling responses and deeming the RFAs admitted.

Sanctions: A court shall impose a monetary sanction, subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010’s requirements, against any party, person, or attorney that fails to serve a timely response to requests for production or interrogatories necessitated in the motion unless it finds the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. CCP §§ 2031.300(c), 2030.290(c). The notice of motion identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. CCP § 2023.040. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. CCP § 2023.040; Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 199, 207-208. “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

Here, defendant’s motions are successful, and plaintiff state no reason why she acted with substantial justification or that other mitigating circumstances exist. Therefore, defendant is entitled to a reasonable monetary sanction.

Their counsel claims an hourly rate of $200, that she spent 2 hours preparing each motions, that she anticipates spending 4 hours preparing a reply and appearing at the hearing, and that she paid a $60 filing fee for three motions. Kim Decls. ¶ 8.

The hourly rate is reasonable for these routine motions. No reply appears in the record. Counsel shall appear on all motions simultaneously. Accordingly, the Court shall make appropriate reductions. The Court intends to award sanctions at $200 per hour for 6 hours’ work for preparing the motions and 1 hour for appearing, for a total of 7 hours. Therefore, the sanction shall be $1,400 plus $180 for the three filing fees, for a total of $1,580.

Motion to Continue Trial Standard: Continuances of trial dates are generally disfavored, unless the necessity for the continuance resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by the granting of a continuance. Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249-1250. Accordingly, continuances may be granted on an affirmative showing of good cause, under the standards recommended in CRC, rule 3.1332(c). CRC, rule 3.1332(c); Lazarus, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at 1249-1250 (decided under former rule 375). Those standards establish that the following matters, under normal circumstances, should be considered by the court to be good cause for granting the continuance of a trial date: (1) death; (2) illness; (3) unavailability of attorney or witness; (4) substitution of attorney; (5) addition of a new party; (6) significant change in status of case. CRC, rule 3.1332(c).

A court should also consider all matters relevant to a proper determination of the motion, including the proximity of trial, previous continuances, the length of the continuance sought, alternatives, prejudice to parties or witnesses, preferential trial setting, the court’s calendar, trial counsels’ calendars, stipulations to continuances, the interests of justice, and any other relevant facts or circumstances. CRC, rule 3.1332(d). Another consideration is that continuances must be sought promptly once their grounds have been ascertained. CRC, rule 3.1332(b).

Nevertheless, the factors that influence the granting or denying of a continuance in any particular case are so varied that the trial judge must necessarily exercise a broad discretion. Arnett v. Office of Admin. Hearings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 332, 343.

The governing factors are set forth in their entirety below. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c), circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5) The addition of a new party if:

(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case;

(6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

Under subdivision (d), other factors to be considered are:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

Motion to Continue Trial Analysis: Defendant moves to continue trial approximately 120 days based on plaintiff’s failure to respond to the written discovery demands discussed above, appear for deposition, and comply with a vehicle inspection demand. Thus, defendant has established an excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence from plaintiff despite diligent efforts.

The Court is not, however, inclined to grant a continuance at this time. Given plaintiff’s lack of opposition, it may be that this case can be resolved on a motion for terminating sanctions.

Conclusion: The motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve verified responses without objection within 15 days or risk inviting a motion for terminating sanctions. The RFAs are deemed admitted. A monetary sanction of $1,580 against plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, shall be payable to defendant via its counsel transmitted by check in a manner to ensure receipt within 20 days.

Defendant is ORDERED to pay an additional $60 filing fee and furnish proof of payment directly to this Department within five days; otherwise, this order as to the special interrogatories motion shall be vacated.

The trial continuance motion is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant to give notice.