SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

WILLIAM SHUFF, an individual; and JOHN HOWLAND, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC., a California corporation; RICHARD A. VOSS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.
Case No. 2018-1-CV-322077

TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF WILLIAM SHUFF’S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS

The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on August 2, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a putative class action arising out of various alleged Labor Code violations. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on March 29, 2018, sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (5) Failure to Pay all Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; (6) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (7) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; and (8) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.

Defendant Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses to special interrogatories from plaintiff William Shuff (“Plaintiff”). Defendant also requests monetary sanctions. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant propounded special interrogatories on Plaintiff on March 18, 2019. Plaintiff has provided no response. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

Plaintiff’s counsel is subject to sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) This is true even though Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. (Cal. Rule Ct. 3.1348, subd. (a) [“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”].)

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $900. The amount of monetary sanctions requested by Defendant includes anticipated time, such as time to prepare for the appearance at the hearing on this motion. Defendant is not entitled to monetary sanctions for fees that have not been incurred. (See Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.) The Court will award monetary sanctions in the amount of $450 jointly and severally against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. (Declaration of David I. Kornbluh in Support of Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc.’s Motion to Compel William Shuff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Sanctions, ¶ 7.)

The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested.