Preview
prefers to h e an estimate of e number of work weeks as
number o ggrieved emplo es and pay-periods (or wor
settle nt. Counsel sho d provide this information i vailable.
1 . Garcia v. Pin cle Medical rou ,
Inc.
~ VDS-200' 7
Mo aa for "reliminary Approv of Class Action and PAG ettlement
Tentativ 'uling:
Gra subject to - e ooiti aI information.
'
e motion estima s the ss size at 390. he Connolly Declaration, ho v
ever,
incen
'
e award for
‘-
named epresentative, refers to “No -
ofthe
in ad essing the
0th 397 class memo-rs Counsel sho- - advise the court whethert estimated
cl s size is 390, 3° ,
or some other numb .
'
Counsel ould also advise the curt of the estimated tot .mber of work-
weeks for the ss settlement and t
'-
estimated number of . grieved employees and
the total numer of pay periods fo e PAGA settlement.
13. Chacon v. Panda Motors, Inc. ~
T”’CT
CIVDs-2022220 4H? 1
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 3y
Tentative Ruling:
ul
’
win .~‘
p.
,
r-D“
-'
Defendant filed a so-called “partial non-opposition” to plaintiff’s motion. Rather” fl I:
.1
«s,
asserted “TY
than addressing the issues raised by the motion—i.e., whether the objections
have merit and whether the answers given were appropriate—the opposition seeks
affirmative relief in the form of a stay pending a decision by the United States Supreme
Court in the Viking River Cruises case, anticipated for late June or July of this year. To
seek such relief, defendant should have filed a motion to stay.‘
Therefore, the motion is unopposed.
Nevertheless, the motion appears to be untimely. Defendant served itsdiscovery
responses on December 15, 2021, by mail. (Zakay Decl., 1] 15, Ex. N) Therefore,
This action is a putative
request for a stay is odd.
Setting aside defendant’s failure t0 bring a separate motion, the
1
PAGA claim. Even if the Supreme Court determines thata waiver of representative
class action, which includes a
such actionscan be compelled into such
arbitration, a ruling would
actions (such as PAGA) are enforceable, orthat
PAGA claim notthe only claim Individual and class claims
in the lawsuit.
because
not dispose of this case, the is
would remain.
Page 2 of 3
CVSZ6041322
plaintiff had to file his motion no later than February 3, 2022, or 45 days from December
15, 2021, plus five additional days to account for mailing.
Plaintiff did not file his motion until February 8, 2022. There isno evidence before
the court that the parties agreed plaintiff could wait until February 8, 2022 to file.
While defendant has not raised the issue of timeliness, the 45-day deadline is
mandatory and jurisdictional, such that the failure to bring the motion within that period
constitutes a waiver of any right to compel a further response. (New Albertsons, Inc. v.
Superior CourT (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1427-1428; Sexton v. Superior Court
(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure
Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) 1m 8:1 146, 8:1491 .)
Where a party misses the deadline to file motions to compel further responses,
the court is without authority to rule on them otion other than to deny it. (Sexton, supra,
58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1410.) Moreover, the 45-dayjurisdictional deadline cannot be
circumvented by waiver, estoppel, or consent, and an act beyond a court’s jurisdiction is
null and void. (Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 14, 20; See
People v. Lara (2010) 48 Ca|.4th 216, 225, quoting People v. Williams (1999) 77
Cal.App.4th 436, 447.) Any agreement to extend the 45-day deadline must be made
before the expiration of the deadline. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil
Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) 1H] 8:1 146-8:1 150, 8:1384, 8:1491-
8:1492.1; Sexton, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409-1410 [extensions of the 45-day
deadline must be made before the expiration of such a deadline].)
The motion is therefore denied.
Page 3 of 3
CV526041322
Preview
prefers to h e an estimate of e number of work weeks as number o ggrieved emplo es and pay-periods (or wor settle nt. Counsel sho d provide this information i vailable. 1 . Garcia v. Pin cle Medical rou , Inc. ~ VDS-200' 7 Mo aa for "reliminary Approv of Class Action and PAG ettlement Tentativ 'uling: Gra subject to - e ooiti aI information. ' e motion estima s the ss size at 390. he Connolly Declaration, ho v ever, incen ' e award for ‘- named epresentative, refers to “No - ofthe in ad essing the 0th 397 class memo-rs Counsel sho- - advise the court whethert estimated cl s size is 390, 3° , or some other numb . ' Counsel ould also advise the curt of the estimated tot .mber of work- weeks for the ss settlement and t '- estimated number of . grieved employees and the total numer of pay periods fo e PAGA settlement. 13. Chacon v. Panda Motors, Inc. ~ T”’CT CIVDs-2022220 4H? 1 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 3y Tentative Ruling: ul ’ win .~‘ p. , r-D“ -' Defendant filed a so-called “partial non-opposition” to plaintiff’s motion. Rather” fl I: .1 «s, asserted “TY than addressing the issues raised by the motion—i.e., whether the objections have merit and whether the answers given were appropriate—the opposition seeks affirmative relief in the form of a stay pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in the Viking River Cruises case, anticipated for late June or July of this year. To seek such relief, defendant should have filed a motion to stay.‘ Therefore, the motion is unopposed. Nevertheless, the motion appears to be untimely. Defendant served itsdiscovery responses on December 15, 2021, by mail. (Zakay Decl., 1] 15, Ex. N) Therefore, This action is a putative request for a stay is odd. Setting aside defendant’s failure t0 bring a separate motion, the 1 PAGA claim. Even if the Supreme Court determines thata waiver of representative class action, which includes a such actionscan be compelled into such arbitration, a ruling would actions (such as PAGA) are enforceable, orthat PAGA claim notthe only claim Individual and class claims in the lawsuit. because not dispose of this case, the is would remain. Page 2 of 3 CVSZ6041322 plaintiff had to file his motion no later than February 3, 2022, or 45 days from December 15, 2021, plus five additional days to account for mailing. Plaintiff did not file his motion until February 8, 2022. There isno evidence before the court that the parties agreed plaintiff could wait until February 8, 2022 to file. While defendant has not raised the issue of timeliness, the 45-day deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, such that the failure to bring the motion within that period constitutes a waiver of any right to compel a further response. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior CourT (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1427-1428; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) 1m 8:1 146, 8:1491 .) Where a party misses the deadline to file motions to compel further responses, the court is without authority to rule on them otion other than to deny it. (Sexton, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1410.) Moreover, the 45-dayjurisdictional deadline cannot be circumvented by waiver, estoppel, or consent, and an act beyond a court’s jurisdiction is null and void. (Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 14, 20; See People v. Lara (2010) 48 Ca|.4th 216, 225, quoting People v. Williams (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 436, 447.) Any agreement to extend the 45-day deadline must be made before the expiration of the deadline. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) 1H] 8:1 146-8:1 150, 8:1384, 8:1491- 8:1492.1; Sexton, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409-1410 [extensions of the 45-day deadline must be made before the expiration of such a deadline].) The motion is therefore denied. Page 3 of 3 CV526041322