Related Content
in Broward County
Ruling
Gjetley vs. Sandoval
Jul 25, 2024 |
23CV-0203634
GJETLEY VS. SANDOVAL
Case Number: 23CV-0203634
Tentative Ruling on Discovery Motions: Defendant Gary Sandoval moves for an order deeming Defendant’s
Requests for Admissions, Set One admitted based on a lack of response from Plaintiff. In a separate motion,
Defendant moves for an order compelling responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special
Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One. The motions were originally noticed for a hearing
on June 10, 2024. On June 10, 2024, the Court continued the hearing to today’s date because Plaintiff Lester
Gjetley had filed a document titled “Plaintiff Lester Gjetley Response to Motion and Discovery” that included a
copy of what appear to be verified responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One and Special Interrogatories,
Set One. Plaintiff was ordered to serve Defendant with these responses. It is unclear if that has occurred. On July
15, 2024, as directed by the Court, Defendant filed a Brief Statement Regarding Outstanding Discovery Issues.
This Statement is not supported by evidence. There are procedural and evidentiary defects on both sides of these
motions. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the merits of the motions despite these defects.
A party has thirty days after service to respond to a Request for Production, Request for Admissions, Form
Interrogatories, or Special Interrogatories. See CCP §§ 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a), and 2030.260(a). Not
providing a timely response to propounded discovery results in a waiver of objections. CCP §§ 2031.300(a).
2033.280(a), and 2030.290(a). If a party to whom a discovery request is directed fails to serve a timely response,
the party propounding discovery may move for an order compelling a response. CCP §§ 2031.300(b) and
2030.290(c). For Request for Admissions specifically, the party can move for an Order that the Request for
Admissions be deemed admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). “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).
Motion for Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts.
Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff filed verified response to Requests for Admissions, Set One on May 28, 2024.
Plaintiff was ordered to serve these on Defendant. It is unclear whether Plaintiff did so as there is no proof of
service. However, the Court made it clear in its June 10, 2024, tentative ruling that a response to Requests for
Admissions, Set One had been filed. Even if these responses may have not been served prior to the June 10, 2024,
hearing, they were filed and available in the court file. Defendant presented no argument regarding whether the
Requests for Admissions responses were in substantial compliance. As Plaintiff filed verified responses prior to
the hearing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for the Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One to be
admitted. It is mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction on the party whose failure to serve a timely
response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. CCP § 2033.280(c). The Court imposes monetary
sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $585 which is comprised of a $60 filing fee and three hours of attorney
time at $175 per hour.
Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Respond to
Request for Production.
Form Interrogatories. It appears from Defendant’s Statement filed on July 15, 2024 that verified responses were
provided as Defendant wrote, “but his verified response to Form Interrogatory 11.0 omits any mention of this
suit.” A lack of service of verified responses is what the original motion alleged. If Plaintiff has served verified
responses and Defendant deems them to be insufficient, Defendant may file a motion compelling further responses
after sufficient meet and confer efforts. In order for the Court to rule on such a motion, the Form Interrogatories
and responses would need to be provided to the Court. As it appears that Plaintiff responded to Form
Interrogatories, Set One, the Court DENIES this request as moot. If the Court is incorrect and Plaintiff did not
serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Defendant may raise the issue at the hearing.
Special Interrogatories. Verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One were filed by Plaintiff on May 28,
2024. As discussed above regarding the Requests for Admissions, these were in the court file. If Defendant
deems the response to be insufficient, Defendant may file a motion compelling further responses after sufficient
meet and confer efforts. As Plaintiff responded to Special Interrogatories, Set One, the Court DENIES this request
as moot.
Request for Production. It appears from Defendant’s Statement that Plaintiff has not formally responded to
Request for Production, Set One but did provide some documents. Despite a partial production, Defendant
maintains that many records in possession or available to Plaintiff have not been provided. The Court finds good
cause for each of the categories listed in Request for Production, Set One. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as
to the Request for Production. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide a verified response to Request for Production,
Set One and produce all responsive records within twenty days of the filing of the Notice of Entry of Order.
Sanctions. CCP §§ 2031.300(c) and 2030.290(c) only provide for sanctions when an unsuccessful opposition is
made, however, the Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to
compel discovery even when no opposition was filed. CRC 3.1348. As it appears that Plaintiff has still not served
a verified response to Request for Production, Set One, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate. The Court
imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $410 which is comprised of a $60 filing fee and
two hours of attorney time. The third hour requested is not awarded as time to attend the hearing has already been
accounted for in Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Truth of Facts.
In the Statement filed by Defendant on July 15, 2024, Defendant requested that Plaintiff be ordered to sit for
another deposition at Plaintiff’s expense. This request is not properly before the Court and will not be addressed.
Defendant did not provide proposed Orders as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). Defendant is to provide
a proposed Order for each motion that is consistent with the Court’s ruling.
Ruling
FCS057573 - PEREZ, HEIDI JUDITH VS BOOKER, WESLEY (DMS)
Jul 26, 2024 |
FCS057573
FCS057573
Motions for Contempt
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied.
No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to the
court. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a
contempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court
(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Int’l Union v. Superior Court
(1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.)
Page 1 of 1
Ruling
GALLEPOSO vs WATKINS
Jul 24, 2024 |
CVSW2205101
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT,
CVSW2205101 GALLEPOSO VS WATKINS DEFAULT BY UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
Tentative Ruling:
The Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED in part. The default
judgment is set aside since Defendant-in-Intervention has filed an Answer and is not in
default and default judgment cannot be entered against any jointly liable Defendants.
USAA has not established any basis to set aside the default against Defendant since
that default is not binding on USAA and no judgment can be entered. The requests for
sanctions are denied.
Ruling
Kaelyn Moralez vs. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center
Jul 25, 2024 |
23CECG05231
Re: Moralez v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center
Superior Court Case No. 23CECG05231
Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 (Dept. 503)
Motion: Motions by Defendants ASFC, LLC, doing business as Sierra
Vista Healthcare, and Aspen Skilled Healthcare, Inc. to
Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special
Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents
and Things (all Set One), and for an Order Establishing
Admissions as to Plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez and as to Plaintiff
Kaelyn Moralez as Heir and Successor-in-Interest to Yolanda
Moralez, and Request for Monetary Sanctions
Tentative Ruling:
To grant all motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280.) Within 20
days of service of the order by the clerk, plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez as heir and successor-
in-interest to Yolanda Moralez, shall serve objection-free responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and
produce all responsive documents. The matters specified in defendants’ Requests for
Admissions, Set One are deemed admitted, unless plaintiff serves, before the hearing, a
proposed response to each set of the requests for admissions that are in substantial
compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.
To grant monetary sanctions against plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez in the amount of
$1,755.00, payable within 20 calendar days from the date of service of the minute order
by the clerk.
Explanation:
Defendants ASFC, LLC, doing business as Sierra Vista Healthcare, and Aspen Skilled
Healthcare, Inc., propounded identical sets of discovery (including the 131 special
interrogatories) on plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez individually, and on plaintiff Kaelyn Moralez as
heir and successor-in-interest to Yolanda Moralez. Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to
this discovery. All that needs to be established to support an order compelling initial
responses to discovery is to show that the discovery was properly served, and that no
responses were received by the due date. Failing to respond to discovery within the 30-
day time limit waives objections to the discovery, including claims of privilege and “work
product” protection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, Subd. (a) [interrogatories] and
2031.300, Subd. (a) [document demands]; see Leach v. Sup.Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d
902, 905-906.)
As for requests for admissions, the court must grant a motion to establish admissions
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.280, subd. (c).) “If the party manages to serve its responses before the hearing, the
court has no discretion but to deny the motion . . . . Everything, in short, depends on
submitting responses prior to the hearing.” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates
(1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396, disapproved on another point in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 973.) No evidence has been submitted that plaintiff has served code-
compliant responses to the two sets of requests for admissions served on her.
Therefore, all motions will be granted. However, the discovery at issue here was
duplicative; it was served on plaintiff in her dual capacities as an individual (for the
wrongful death cause of action) and as successor in interest to her now-deceased
mother (as to the remaining causes of action). None of the discovery was tailored to any
differences between plaintiff’s two capacities, but instead were completely identical,
and because of this, could be called confusing.1
While defendants are allowed to propound duplicative discovery, the court is not
required to double the sanctions for these efforts. Thus, this impacts the court’s
consideration of defendants’ request for monetary sanctions. The court may refuse to
issue monetary sanctions if it finds there are circumstances that would render sanctions
“unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, Subd. (c) [Interrogatories], 2031.300, Subd. (c)
[Document demands].) Here, it would be unjust to grant sanctions in the amount
requested. Defendants filed motions concerning four types of identical discovery
propounded on plaintiff in each of her two capacities in this action. They divided these
into two motions (so four motions total), one regarding the form and special
interrogatories and document demands, and the other regarding the requests for
admissions. So the attorney work was in drafting four motions. They asked for sanctions
for one hour of legal research for each of the four motions, and three hours to prepare
each of the substantially identical four motions, plus time for appearance at the hearing,
plus filing fees. The court will allow a total of five hours for preparing these substantially
identical motions at counsel’s stated hourly rate of $255/hour ($1,275.00) plus $480 for the
motion fees paid, for a total of $1,755.00.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure
section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order
adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk
will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: jyh on 7/24/24 .
(Judge’s initials) (Date)
1 The 131 special interrogatories directed to plaintiff as an individual, in particular, were confusing
and are arguably irrelevant if taken at face value (despite counsel’s “declaration of necessity
pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.050) since they are written as if plaintiff, individually, alleged
she was the victim of elder abuse, when she alleged her mother was the victim. These were not
tailored to ask about plaintiff’s contentions regarding her individual, i.e., wrongful death damages.
Alternately, if she regarded these (or had been instructed to regard these) as asking for answers
about her mother’s injuries and damages, they would be simply duplicative of the special
interrogatories propounded on her as decedent’s successor-in-interest.
Ruling
LAWSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
Jul 24, 2024 |
CVPM21-0197195
LAWSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
Case Number: CVPM21-0197195
This matter is on calendar for review regarding: 1) status of deposit of funds into blocked account
for Jonnie Lloyd Lawson Stanley, 2) status of funding the special needs trust for Ravien Lawson,
3) status of Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise for Lou Ella Lawson (the Petition filed
April 4, 2024 was stricken per the Court’s Order dated April 5, 2024 because Lou Ella Lawson is
not a named party to the Complaint), 4) status of dismissal. Plaintiff has filed a status statement,
indicating that additional time is needed to deposit funds and file confirmation of deposit of funds.
However, Plaintiff incorrectly states the status regarding Lou Ella Lawson. The Court again notes
that the Petition regarding Lou Ella Lawson filed April 4, 2024 was stricken. No Minor’s
Compromise has been approved for Lou Ella Lawson. Orders to Deposit Funds have only been
executed for Jonnie and Ravien. This matter is continued to Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:00
a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of the issues noted above. No appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
CUNNINGHAM vs AMIRHOUSHMAND
Jul 27, 2024 |
CVRI2301873
Motion for an Order to Require an
Undertaking for Costs Pursuant to Code
CUNNINGHAM vs
CVRI2301873 of Civil Procedure §1030 by PARDIS
AMIRHOUSHMAND
AMIRHOUSHMAND, RICHARD
GARCIA
Tentative Ruling: The Motion is taken off calendar by moving party.
Ruling
LAWSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
Jul 22, 2024 |
CVPM21-0197195
LAWSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
Case Number: CVPM21-0197195
This matter is on calendar for review regarding: 1) status of deposit of funds into blocked account
for Jonnie Lloyd Lawson Stanley, 2) status of funding the special needs trust for Ravien Lawson,
3) status of Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise for Lou Ella Lawson (the Petition filed
April 4, 2024 was stricken per the Court’s Order dated April 5, 2024 because Lou Ella Lawson is
not a named party to the Complaint), 4) status of dismissal. Plaintiff has filed a status statement,
indicating that additional time is needed to deposit funds and file confirmation of deposit of funds.
However, Plaintiff incorrectly states the status regarding Lou Ella Lawson. The Court again notes
that the Petition regarding Lou Ella Lawson filed April 4, 2024 was stricken. No Minor’s
Compromise has been approved for Lou Ella Lawson. Orders to Deposit Funds have only been
executed for Jonnie and Ravien. This matter is continued to Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:00
a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of the issues noted above. No appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar.