Case Number: BC634765 Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Jessica ramirez, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ghp management, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 634765

Hearing Date:

March 21, 2018

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

A. DEFENDANT BRS ROOFING, INC.’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JESSICA RAMIREZ TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO:

a. FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE

b. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. ONE

B. REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Background

Plaintiffs Jessica Ramirez, Albert Stuart Bevans, Aliyah Frazier, Jasmin Frazier, Albert Bevans, and Janae Bevans (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action on September 21, 2016. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on January 12, 2017. The gravamen of the FAC is that Plaintiffs, 2 adults and 4 minor children, were injured as a result of a roof collapse that occurred in their home.

On September 25, 2017, Defendant BRS Roofing, Inc. (“BRS”) served Plaintiffs with the first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions. (Rolan Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs were granted multiple requests for extensions of time to respond to the discovery, and eventually the agreed upon due date for the discovery responses was December 13, 2017. (Rolan Decl., ¶ 6.) BRS only received responses to the Requests for Admission, and thereafter, on December 27, 2017, sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs inquiring about the status of the missing discovery responses. (Rolan Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B.) As of the filing of the instant motion, BRS has neither received responses to the outstanding discovery nor a response to the meet and confer letter. (Rolan Decl., ¶ 8.)

BRS now moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Jessica Ramirez (“Ramirez”) to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. No opposition to these motions was filed.

Discussion

If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections and for a monetary sanction. (CCP §§2030.290(b); 2031.300(b).) Here, Ramirez did not serve a timely response to BRS’ requests. Ramirez does not oppose the instant motions, so she does not contend otherwise. Accordingly, BRS’ motions to compel are granted as to its first sets of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. BRS has also requested the Court order monetary sanctions in the amount of $900 for each of the motions. In light of the lack of an opposition and in light of the sanctions already imposed by the Court against Plaintiffs, the Court finds that imposing sanctions in the total amount of $450.00 is reasonable.

Conclusion

Ramirez is ordered to serve written responses without objections within 30 days of notice of this Order. Ramirez is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $450.00 to BRS,

by and through its counsel, within 30 days of notice of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c) and 2033.280(c).)

BRS is ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED: March 21, 2018 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court