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: BC655519 Hearing Date: April 30, 2018 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

THOMAS MARKLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC655519

Hearing Date:

April 30, 2018

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES;

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;

MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS; AND

REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Background

Plaintiffs Thomas Markle and Janice Markle (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on March 28, 2017 against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) alleging violations of provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Magnuson-Moss Act.

On December 22, 2017, Ford served Plaintiffs with Requests for Admissions, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. (Hughes Decls., ¶ 2.) As of the date of the filing of the instant motions, Plaintiffs have not served responses to any of the written discovery requests. (Hughes Decls., ¶ 3.) Counsel for Ford sent a meet and confer letter regarding the requests on January 30, 2018. (Hughes Decls., ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs have not responded to the meet and confer letter. (Hughes Decls., ¶ 5.)

Ford now moves to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. Ford also moves to have the Requests for Admissions deemed admitted. No opposition to the motions was filed.

Discussion

A party that fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or inspection demands waives any objection to the request. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).) The propounding party may move the court for orders compelling responses to interrogatories and demands for inspection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents and therefore grants Ford’s motion compelling responses to these written discovery requests.

Upon a party’s failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission, the requesting 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 Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(b).) Unless a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 is served before the hearing on the motion, the court shall enter an order deeming the truth of the matters in the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) Additionally, monetary sanctions are mandatory for failure to serve responses to requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc.,

§ 2033.280(c).)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses to the Requests for Admissions. The Court intends to grant the deemed admitted motion unless Plaintiffs present evidence at the hearing that responses were served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

The Court further finds, in light of Plaintiffs’ non-opposition and failure to meet and confer with Ford, that there is no substantial justification for Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the written discovery requests. Therefore, monetary sanctions are warranted. Because no oppositions were filed, and because counsel for Ford did not separate out the time it would take to draft a reply brief and to travel to and appear at the hearing on these motions, the Court reduces the total amount of sanctions awarded to $460 per motion, for a total of $1,380.00.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Ford’s motions to compel responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents are granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve substantive verified responses, without objections, to the Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within 30 days of notice of this Order. Plaintiffs are further ordered to pay $1,380.00 to Ford, by and through its counsel, within 30 days of notice of this Order. Ford’s motion for order establishing admissions is granted. The truth of all matters specified in the Requests for Admissions served on Plaintiffs is deemed admitted.

Ford is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: April 30, 2018 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court