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
w
1 Angelica Acosta Samaniego SBN 235423
VARNER BRANDT LLP
2 3750 University Avenue Suite 610
Riverside California 92501
3 Telephone 951 274 7777
Si tRia
cou
U
Y oF 4A
G r 7o
Facsimile 951 274 7770 SAN gEFP A P
r f
1
4
JUL 6 2 2
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC y
6 r
C r1
L a
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC Case No CIVDS1930132
O
Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable
a 12 Plaintiffs Thomas S Garza Department S27
av o
13 v REPLY OF PLAINTIFF JETCRUZER
o INTERNATIONAL TO DEFENDANT S
r Q 14 SANDY ACOSTA an individual and OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEEM
DBA CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERIORS MATTERS ADMITTED
a 15 PA1NT and CHINO AIRCRAFT
INTERIORS CAI DOES 1 through DATE
and July 23 2020
16 50 inclusive TIME 10 00 a m
DEPT S27
17 Defendants
18
19 I INTRODUCTION
20 On 29 2020
May 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 Requests for Production based upon her failure to provide
23 timely answers to same Requests for Admissions were served on March 5 2020 and responses
24 were
originally due April 13 2020
on
Additionally served concurrently with the Requests for
25 Admissions were Form Interrogatories Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production
26 None of these discovery demands were answered and a motion was filed for each mode of written
27 discovery
28
1
MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED
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 April 27 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 tliat 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
10 the cause of the delay Defendant also asserts in her opposition that imposition of sanctions would
11 be unjust in this situation due to the circumstances
a
a
N
rn
12 II NO RESPONSES SERVED
13
Defendant asserts that full responses without objections will be served prior to the hearing
o
c Q 14 thereby making the motions to compel moot This still remains to be seen
As of the writing of
U
15 this Reply Brief no responses have been
yet received Accordingly Plaintiff is unable to assess
16
on
the answers and make a determination as to their completeness If those responses were suddenly
17
received and if Plaintiff 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 responses will be 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 deem matters admitted is not moot and
24 the hearing 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 opposition Code of Civil Procedure 2033 280 c
28 in
provides pertinent part
i t is mandatorv that the court impose a monetary sanction under
2
MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED
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
w 1 Angelica Acosta Samaniego SBN 235423 VARNER BRANDT LLP 2 3750 University Avenue Suite 610 Riverside California 92501 3 Telephone 951 274 7777 Si tRia cou U Y oF 4A G r 7o Facsimile 951 274 7770 SAN gEFP A P r f 1 4 JUL 6 2 2 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC y 6 r C r1 L a 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL LLC Case No CIVDS1930132 O Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable a 12 Plaintiffs Thomas S Garza Department S27 av o 13 v REPLY OF PLAINTIFF JETCRUZER o INTERNATIONAL TO DEFENDANT S r Q 14 SANDY ACOSTA an individual and OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DEEM DBA CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERIORS MATTERS ADMITTED a 15 PA1NT and CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERIORS CAI DOES 1 through DATE and July 23 2020 16 50 inclusive TIME 10 00 a m DEPT S27 17 Defendants 18 19 I INTRODUCTION 20 On 29 2020 May 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 Requests for Production based upon her failure to provide 23 timely answers to same Requests for Admissions were served on March 5 2020 and responses 24 were originally due April 13 2020 on Additionally served concurrently with the Requests for 25 Admissions were Form Interrogatories Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production 26 None of these discovery demands were answered and a motion was filed for each mode of written 27 discovery 28 1 MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED 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 April 27 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 tliat 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 10 the cause of the delay Defendant also asserts in her opposition that imposition of sanctions would 11 be unjust in this situation due to the circumstances a a N rn 12 II NO RESPONSES SERVED 13 Defendant asserts that full responses without objections will be served prior to the hearing o c Q 14 thereby making the motions to compel moot This still remains to be seen As of the writing of U 15 this Reply Brief no responses have been yet received Accordingly Plaintiff is unable to assess 16 on the answers and make a determination as to their completeness If those responses were suddenly 17 received and if Plaintiff 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 responses will be 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 deem matters admitted is not moot and 24 the hearing 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 opposition Code of Civil Procedure 2033 280 c 28 in provides pertinent part i t is mandatorv that the court impose a monetary sanction under 2 MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED