On August 16, 2019 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Filed By: Robinson, Jay,
On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
Pineda, Hugo,
Robinson, Jay,
and
Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, Llc, A California Corporation,
Does 1-10,
Phillips & Jordan Environmental Services, Llc, A North Carolina Corporation,
Phillips & Jordan Inc,
Phillips & Jordan Inc.,
for (Other Employment Complaint Case)
in the District Court of Sacramento County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 11/05/2020 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 54
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger
CLERK: G. Toda
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: N. Alvi, P. Lopez
CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 08/16/2019
CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC, a California
Corporation
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion
APPEARANCES
Patricia A. Savage, telephonic for: Plaintiff(s), Jay Robinson
Shane S. Singh, telephonic for Defendant(s), Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for
Admissions
TENTATIVE RULING
The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, filed by Plaintiffs Jay Robinson
and Hugo Pineda, is ruled upon as follows.
On April 2, 2020, Plaintiffs served their Requests for Admissions on Defendant. (Savage Decl., para. 2
and Exh. A thereto.)
After Plaintiffs granted multiple extensions of time to respond, Defendant served its initial responses on
June 18, 2020. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel initiated attempts to meet and confer regarding the
responses. (Savage Decl., para. 6.) Plaintiffs granted Defendant until July 6 to provide further
responses. (Id.) This deadline was then extended by stipulation to July 10, 2020.
According to Defendant, on June 18, 2020, Defendant served responses to Plaintiffs' discovery. On
August 13, 2020, Defendant then served verified amended responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for
Admissions via U.S. mail. (See Singh Decl., paras. 2-3 and Exh. A.)
Plaintiffs filed this motion on October 8, 2020.
Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' motion is untimely and exceeds the 45-day statutory limit in which a
party is required to file a motion to compel further responses. Since Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel
further responses to written discovery, Plaintiff is subject to the 45-day time limit prescribed by statute.
(See Code Civ. Proc. secs. 2030.300(a)(3), 2031.310(a)(3) , 2033.290(a)(2); see also,Weil & Brown,
California Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2011) Secs. 8:1145-8:1146.)
DATE: 11/05/2020 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation
The Court agrees that the time has passed for Plaintiffs to file any motion related to a dispute regarding
the initial responses that Defendant served on or about June 18. However, Defendant subsequently
provided the amended responses and it is these responses that are (or should be) the subject of the
motion to compel further responses. (See Code Civ. Proc. sec. 2033.290(c) [notice of a motion to
compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service "of the verified response, or any
supplemental verified response"].) Defendant's proof of service reflects that the amended responses
were served via U.S. Mail on August 13, 2020, which necessitates that Plaintiff had an additional five (5)
days' time to file any motion to compel further responses. Plaintiff's deadline to file this motion for those
specific sets of discovery thus was October 9, 2020. Accordingly, the motion is timely as to the
amended responses, since the motion was filed on October 8.
Although the motion is timely as to the amended responses, Plaintiffs fail to submit the requisite
declaration of counsel reflecting efforts to meet and confer to informally resolve the discovery dispute.
While counsel's declaration in support of the motion discusses the history leading up to the provision of
the amended interrogatory responses and efforts to meet and confer, the declaration lacks evidence of
service of the amended responses or any attempts to meet and confer following service thereof on
August 13, 2020. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(b)(1) requires that a motion to compel
further responses to requests for admissions shall be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration
under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. Section 2016.040 specifies that "[a] meet and confer
declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an
informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion." The Court finds is no evidence of any good
faith efforts to resolve or narrow the issues with respect to the amended responses prior to filing the
instant motion. As the requirement of informal efforts to resolve disputes is mandatory prior to filing a
motion to compel further responses, the motion must be DENIED as moot.
Since the Court has denied the motion to compel, Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is denied. Defendant's
request for sanctions also is denied.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further
notice is required.
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
SUBMITTED MATTER RULING
Having taken the matter under submission, the Court now rules as follows: The Court affirmed the
tentative ruling.
DATE: 11/05/2020 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 11/05/2020 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 54 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger CLERK: G. Toda REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: N. Alvi, P. Lopez CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 08/16/2019 CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT TYPE: Motion to Compel - Other - Civil Law and Motion APPEARANCES Patricia A. Savage, telephonic for: Plaintiff(s), Jay Robinson Shane S. Singh, telephonic for Defendant(s), Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions TENTATIVE RULING The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, filed by Plaintiffs Jay Robinson and Hugo Pineda, is ruled upon as follows. On April 2, 2020, Plaintiffs served their Requests for Admissions on Defendant. (Savage Decl., para. 2 and Exh. A thereto.) After Plaintiffs granted multiple extensions of time to respond, Defendant served its initial responses on June 18, 2020. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel initiated attempts to meet and confer regarding the responses. (Savage Decl., para. 6.) Plaintiffs granted Defendant until July 6 to provide further responses. (Id.) This deadline was then extended by stipulation to July 10, 2020. According to Defendant, on June 18, 2020, Defendant served responses to Plaintiffs' discovery. On August 13, 2020, Defendant then served verified amended responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions via U.S. mail. (See Singh Decl., paras. 2-3 and Exh. A.) Plaintiffs filed this motion on October 8, 2020. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' motion is untimely and exceeds the 45-day statutory limit in which a party is required to file a motion to compel further responses. Since Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel further responses to written discovery, Plaintiff is subject to the 45-day time limit prescribed by statute. (See Code Civ. Proc. secs. 2030.300(a)(3), 2031.310(a)(3) , 2033.290(a)(2); see also,Weil & Brown, California Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2011) Secs. 8:1145-8:1146.) DATE: 11/05/2020 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation The Court agrees that the time has passed for Plaintiffs to file any motion related to a dispute regarding the initial responses that Defendant served on or about June 18. However, Defendant subsequently provided the amended responses and it is these responses that are (or should be) the subject of the motion to compel further responses. (See Code Civ. Proc. sec. 2033.290(c) [notice of a motion to compel further responses must be given within 45 days of the service "of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response"].) Defendant's proof of service reflects that the amended responses were served via U.S. Mail on August 13, 2020, which necessitates that Plaintiff had an additional five (5) days' time to file any motion to compel further responses. Plaintiff's deadline to file this motion for those specific sets of discovery thus was October 9, 2020. Accordingly, the motion is timely as to the amended responses, since the motion was filed on October 8. Although the motion is timely as to the amended responses, Plaintiffs fail to submit the requisite declaration of counsel reflecting efforts to meet and confer to informally resolve the discovery dispute. While counsel's declaration in support of the motion discusses the history leading up to the provision of the amended interrogatory responses and efforts to meet and confer, the declaration lacks evidence of service of the amended responses or any attempts to meet and confer following service thereof on August 13, 2020. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(b)(1) requires that a motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions shall be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. Section 2016.040 specifies that "[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion." The Court finds is no evidence of any good faith efforts to resolve or narrow the issues with respect to the amended responses prior to filing the instant motion. As the requirement of informal efforts to resolve disputes is mandatory prior to filing a motion to compel further responses, the motion must be DENIED as moot. Since the Court has denied the motion to compel, Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is denied. Defendant's request for sanctions also is denied. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required. COURT RULING The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission. SUBMITTED MATTER RULING Having taken the matter under submission, the Court now rules as follows: The Court affirmed the tentative ruling. DATE: 11/05/2020 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 54 Calendar No.