On October 08, 2019 a
Hearing
was filed
involving a dispute between
Acosta, Sandy,
Jetcruzer International, Llc.,
and
Acosta, Sandy,
Does 3 Through 50,
Guzman, Marvin J.,
Zepeda, Ulises A.,
for Fraud
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
s
1 Angelica Acosta Samaniego SBN 235423
VARNER BRANDT LLP S
2 3750 University Avenue Suite 610
pER OR c U T
a rrY pF SAN
o i
Riverside California 92501
N 8 S
lA DINO p
yq fl
F
cy
3 Telephone 951 274 7777 i
UI 1
Facsimile 951 274 7770 2 12
4
BY
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff r
q
JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC Case No CIVDS 1930132
Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable
12 Plaintiffs
a Thomas S Garza Department S27
a
13 v
REPLY OF PLAINTIFF JETCRUZER
INTERNATIONAL TO DFFENDANT S
m 14 SANDY ACOSTA an individual and OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
DB A CHINO AI RC RAF T INTERI OR S A NS WE RS T O S P E CIAL
15 PAINT and CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERROGATORIES
INTERIORS CAI and DOES 1 through
16 50 inclusive DATE July 23 2020
TIME 10 00 a m
17 Defendants DEPT S27
18
19 I INTRODUCTION
20 On May 29 2020 Plaintiff JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC JetCruzer filed
21 the above captioned motion to compel SANDY ACOSTA dba CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERIORS
22 Defendant to provide answers to Special Interrogatories based upon her failure to provide
23 timely answers to same Interrogatories were served on March 5 2020 and responses were
24 due April 13 2020
originally on
Additionally served concurrently with the Special
25 Interrogatories were Form Interrogatories Requests for Production and Requests for Admission
26 None of these discovery demands were answered and a motion was filed for each mode of written
27 discovery
28
1
PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1 On April 17 2020 counsel for JetCruzer attempted to meet and confer with Defendant s
2 counsel by way of written correspondence requesting that answers be provided without objection
3 by Apri127 2020 No letter was ever received from Defendant s counsel and no responses were
4 received Subsequent to that date a phone call was made to the offices of defense counsel and
5 there was no answer Eventually on May 29 2020 Plaintiff s counsel filed the above captioned
6 motion seeking to compel responses and seeking sanctions
7 Defendant now opposes the motion asserting that full and complete answers without
8 objections will be served on JetCruzer s counsel before the hearing on the motion and that the
9 Covid 19 pandemic coupled with the heavy crush of business in defense counsel s office was the
10 cause of the delay Defendant also asserts in her opposition that imposition of sanctions would be
11 unjust in this situation due to the circumstances
a 12 II NO RESPONSES SERVED
a
13
Defendant asserts that full responses without objections will be served prior to the hearing
r w 14 thereby making the motions to compel moot This remains to be
N
still seen
As of the writing of
a3 U
a 15 this Reply Brief no responses have been
yet received
Accordingly Plaintiff is unable to assess
16
o the answers and make a determination as to their completeness If those responses were suddenly
17 received and ifPlaintiffl s counsel found them to be lacking in some respect the motion would still
18 be needed Accordingly the issue is by definition NOT moot There is not even a guarantee that
19 be
responses will
forthcoming In her opposition Defendant does not even assert that the responses
20
are in the proverbial mail instead the opposition suggests that Plaintiff must rely upon the best
21
efforts and good intentions ofthe defense to provide the responses prior to the hearing on the above
22 captioned motion In light of the approximately 130 days of silence from Defendant s side of the
23
litigation Plaintiff respectfully maintains that the motion to compel is not moot and the hearing
24 must go forward as set
25 III SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE
26 Sanctions are mandatory under California s discovery statutes even under circumstances
27 such as those presented in Defendant s Code ofCivil Procedure
opposition 2030 290 c says
28
that the court shall impose sanctions against the losing party in a motion to compel Defendant s
2
PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Document Filed Date
July 16, 2020
Case Filing Date
October 08, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
s 1 Angelica Acosta Samaniego SBN 235423 VARNER BRANDT LLP S 2 3750 University Avenue Suite 610 pER OR c U T a rrY pF SAN o i Riverside California 92501 N 8 S lA DINO p yq fl F cy 3 Telephone 951 274 7777 i UI 1 Facsimile 951 274 7770 2 12 4 BY 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff r q JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC Case No CIVDS 1930132 Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable 12 Plaintiffs a Thomas S Garza Department S27 a 13 v REPLY OF PLAINTIFF JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL TO DFFENDANT S m 14 SANDY ACOSTA an individual and OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DB A CHINO AI RC RAF T INTERI OR S A NS WE RS T O S P E CIAL 15 PAINT and CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERROGATORIES INTERIORS CAI and DOES 1 through 16 50 inclusive DATE July 23 2020 TIME 10 00 a m 17 Defendants DEPT S27 18 19 I INTRODUCTION 20 On May 29 2020 Plaintiff JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC JetCruzer filed 21 the above captioned motion to compel SANDY ACOSTA dba CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERIORS 22 Defendant to provide answers to Special Interrogatories based upon her failure to provide 23 timely answers to same Interrogatories were served on March 5 2020 and responses were 24 due April 13 2020 originally on Additionally served concurrently with the Special 25 Interrogatories were Form Interrogatories Requests for Production and Requests for Admission 26 None of these discovery demands were answered and a motion was filed for each mode of written 27 discovery 28 1 PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 On April 17 2020 counsel for JetCruzer attempted to meet and confer with Defendant s 2 counsel by way of written correspondence requesting that answers be provided without objection 3 by Apri127 2020 No letter was ever received from Defendant s counsel and no responses were 4 received Subsequent to that date a phone call was made to the offices of defense counsel and 5 there was no answer Eventually on May 29 2020 Plaintiff s counsel filed the above captioned 6 motion seeking to compel responses and seeking sanctions 7 Defendant now opposes the motion asserting that full and complete answers without 8 objections will be served on JetCruzer s counsel before the hearing on the motion and that the 9 Covid 19 pandemic coupled with the heavy crush of business in defense counsel s office was the 10 cause of the delay Defendant also asserts in her opposition that imposition of sanctions would be 11 unjust in this situation due to the circumstances a 12 II NO RESPONSES SERVED a 13 Defendant asserts that full responses without objections will be served prior to the hearing r w 14 thereby making the motions to compel moot This remains to be N still seen As of the writing of a3 U a 15 this Reply Brief no responses have been yet received Accordingly Plaintiff is unable to assess 16 o the answers and make a determination as to their completeness If those responses were suddenly 17 received and ifPlaintiffl s counsel found them to be lacking in some respect the motion would still 18 be needed Accordingly the issue is by definition NOT moot There is not even a guarantee that 19 be responses will forthcoming In her opposition Defendant does not even assert that the responses 20 are in the proverbial mail instead the opposition suggests that Plaintiff must rely upon the best 21 efforts and good intentions ofthe defense to provide the responses prior to the hearing on the above 22 captioned motion In light of the approximately 130 days of silence from Defendant s side of the 23 litigation Plaintiff respectfully maintains that the motion to compel is not moot and the hearing 24 must go forward as set 25 III SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE 26 Sanctions are mandatory under California s discovery statutes even under circumstances 27 such as those presented in Defendant s Code ofCivil Procedure opposition 2030 290 c says 28 that the court shall impose sanctions against the losing party in a motion to compel Defendant s 2 PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES