Document for Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR       COURT      OF  CALIFORNIA,       COUNTY       OF  PLACER



                    Date:  July11, 2019                                      Time:  8:30 AM
                    Judge:  Charles D. Wachob                                 Dept.: LM
                    Reporter:                                                 Clerk:



                  Pacific Union International,  Inc.vs.Ludwick,   Erik etal                            [_] Present



                                                                                                       [_] Present

                  _] And  related Cross  Action(s)                           Case #  S-CV-0042080

                                                              Law  and  Motion   Minutes

                  Proceedings    RE:  Motion:  Compel   -/Motion:  Compel

                  (] Dropped.                C1] Continued  to         C] by  Plaintiff[.] by Defendant
                                                                                   _] by  Stipulation [J by  Court

                  [_]Matter  argued  and  submitted.

                  [_]Submitted   on points  and authorities  without  (] argument    [_]appearance.

                  [] Motion/Petition   granted.    [_]Motion/Petition   denied.
                  (_]Demurrer    [_]sustained   [] overruled   [_]without   [_]with   leave to [_]amend    [] answer.

                  [_]Counsel  appointed   for:
                  (_]Taken   under  submission.

                  (_]Debtor  is sworn  and  retired with counsel  for examination.

                  CJ Stipulation  to[Judge    Pro Tem    [_]Commissioner    executed  in open court.

                  (J Counsel  for        to prepare  the written order  and submit  it toopposing   counsel  forapproval   as
                     tocontent  and  form.

                  (J Other         .

                      The  tentative ruling isadopted  as the ruling of the court, towit:


                    Defendants’    Motion    to Compel    Further   Response    to Request    for Admissions,     Set  One




                  The  motion    isdenied   without   prejudice.    Requests    made   on  the civil law  and   motion   calendar

                  require  the  filing, at a minimum,     of a notice  of  hearing  on  any  motion;   the  motion   itself; and  a

                  memorandum       in  support  of  the motion.    (California   Rules  of  Court,  Rule   3.1112(a).)    The   court

                  file and  defendants’    proof  of service   show   defendants   failed  to file and  serve  a notice  of  motion



                                             AO        00   NA
                                                   a                                                a.




                 and  a memorandum        in support   of this request.   The  failure  to include   these  documents     is fatal.

                 Defendant    has  not  been  afforded   proper   notice  of the motion    and  the court  is unable   to fully

                 assess  the request   without    amemorandum       of  points  and  authorities.   The   court  declines  to

                 entertain  the  motion   until such  time   as itis properly   brought   before  the  court.



                 Plaintiffs   request  for sanctions   is denied.    The  imposition    of monetary     sanctions   isgenerally

                 warranted    where   a party  makes   an  unsuccessful    motion   to compel    further  responses    to requests

                 for admissions.     (Code   of Civil  Procedure    section  2033.290(d).)      Such   sanctions   will not  be

                 awarded    where   there  is a substantial  justification  or  other  circumstances    would    make   the

                 imposition    unjust.  (Ibid.)  The   court has  carefully   reviewed   the  moving    and  opposing    papers.

                 While   plaintiff  made   procedural   errors  in the  presentation   of the  motion,   the  substantive   request

                 brought   to the  court  was  justified.  Indeed,   this matter  should   have  been   handled   informally

                 rather  than  forcing  plaintiff  to seek  a court  order  to a straightforward    request   for admission.     The

                 court  finds  plaintiff was  justified  in bringing   the  motion   so that  plaintiff is not  entitled  to a

                 sanction   award.




                  Defendants’    Motion    to Compel    Further   Responses    to  Special  Interrogatories,    Set One




                  The  motion    isdenied   without   prejudice.   Requests    made   on  the civil law  and   motion   calendar

                           the  filing, at a minimum,     of a notice  of  hearing  on  any  motion;   the  motion   itself; and  a
                  require

                                   in  support  of  the motion.    (California   Rules  of  Court,  Rule   3.1112(a).)   The   court
                  memorandum

                  file does  not reflect  defendants    filed either  a motion   or  amemorandum.        Defendants’     various

                              service  refer to  a motion,   which   does  not  appear  in the  court  file, but do  not  mention   a
                  proofs  of

                  memorandum.        The  failure  to include   these  documents    prevents   the  court  from   sufficiently

                                   request.   The   court declines   to entertain  the  motion   until  such  time  as it is properly
                  reviewing    the

                  brought   before  the  court.
                 Plaintiff's  request  for sanctions   is denied.   The  imposition    of monetary    sanctions   is generally

                 warranted    where   a party  makes   an  unsuccessful    motion   to compel    further  responses   to

                 interrogatories.    (Code   of Civil  Procedure    section  2030.300(d).)     Such   sanctions   will not  be

                 awarded    where   there  isa substantial   justification  or other  circumstances     would   make    the

                 imposition   unjust.   (Ibid.)  The  court  has  carefully  reviewed    the  moving    and  opposing    papers.

                 While   plaintiff made    procedural   errors  in the presentation    of the motion,    the substantive    request

                 brought   to the  court was   justified.  The  court  finds  plaintiff was   justified  in bringing   the motion

                 so that  plaintiff is not entitled  to a sanction   award.