Case Number: 23STCV21760 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 71
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 71
TENTATIVE RULING
| JUAN PEREZ ALVAREZ,
vs.
FCA US LLC |
Case No.: 23STCV21760
Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 |
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories `is denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.
Plaintiff Juan Perez Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Notice of Motion pg. 1.) In addition, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.
Background
On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for Violation of Song-Beverly Act-Breach of Express Warranty and Negligent Repair. Plaintiff alleges that on May 29, 2019, Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Dodge Charger (“subject vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle developed defects and nonconformities to the warranty manifested themselves.
On May 20, 2024, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on May 31, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on August 14, 2024. Plaintiff filed a reply on August 20, 2024.
Legal Standard
“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. ¶ (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. ¶ (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)
The propounding party must submit a declaration under Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.040 stating facts demonstrating a good faith and reasonable effort to informally resolve each issue raised by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300, subd. (b).)
“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]¿Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation]¿These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
Discovery is construed broadly so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-378.) Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery, particularly where the precise issues in the case are not yet clearly established. (Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)
Here, the Court finds that the motion is moot. On August 12, 2024, Defendant provided further responses to all of Plaintiff’s requests at issue in this motion. In reply, Plaintiff does not dispute that the motion is moot, but argues the request for sanctions should be granted. (Reply, pg. 1.)
Thus, the only issue left to address is sanctions. The Court has authority to rule on sanctions when responses are served after the motion is filed. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 409.)
A court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand or interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)
Because the motion is denied (as moot), and because Defendant provided further responses, the court declines to award monetary sanctions.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is denied as moot. The request for sanctions is denied.
Moving Party to give notice.
Dated: August 27, 2024
| Hon. Daniel M. Crowley |
| Judge of the Superior Court |