Jesus Cerda v. Los Angeles County, et al.

Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (d), (e).) The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, provided that there is no prejudice to the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

Discussion

Attorney Daniel Gopstein, Esq ("Counsel") filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. (See Form MC-051.) Counsel also filed a proposed order. (See Form MC-053.)

Counsel's declaration demonstrates good cause for withdrawal based on a breakdown in communication with the clients, stating the following: "Since January 26, 2026, our office has been attempting to contact Plaintiffs via phone calls, and conducted a skip trace in an effort to contact Plaintiffs through alternative means. On January 28, 2026, we received possible phone numbers and an alternative address for Plaintiffs. On March 19, 2026, our office arranged for a field agent to visit Plaintiffs' alleged residence and to request contact with our office to no avail. On June 8, 2026, our office conducted another skip trace to deliver correspondence letters in an effort to contact Plaintiffs. The correspondence letters were delivered to both Plaintiffs and our office has been attempting to make contact, however, Plaintiffs remain unreachable and non-responsive." (Gopstein Decl., P. 2.)

Counsel states that the client was served copies of the Motion papers by mail at the client's last known address, which was confirmed via third-party vendor skip trace, in the past thirty (30) days. (Gopstein Decl., P. 3(b).)

Counsel states that, even if he has been unable to serve the client with the moving papers, the Court should grant attorney's motion to be relieved as counsel of record because "[t]he attorney-client relationship has irreparable broken down and the representation of the client has been rendered as unreasonably difficult." (Gopstein Decl., P. 3(c).)

Counsel has filed a Proof of Service indicating that the client has been served the Motion papers via mail. However, the Proof of Service does not indicate that Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. has been served the Motion papers. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d) states the following: "The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case."

Accordingly, the hearing on the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to September 17, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. L. Counsel is to file Proofs of Service indicating that 1) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. has been served the Motion papers, and 2) Defendant and the clients have notice of the continued hearing date.

I. Defendant County of Los Angeles' Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted is DENIED as MOOT.

II. Defendant County of Los Angeles' Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Production, Set One, is DENIED as MOOT.

III. Defendant County of Los Angeles' Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, is DENIED as MOOT.

IV. Defendant is awarded reduced sanctions in the amount of $750.00 in total. Defendant to give notice.

Background

This is a civil rights action regarding an incident that occurred on June 22, 2025. On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff Jesus Cerda ("Plaintiff") filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County, Taylor May, and Does 1 to 10.

The gravamen of the Complaint is that Defendant Taylor May, acting under employment as a deputy sheriff, attempted to pull over Plaintiff while driving. During the chase, Plaintiff's vehicle collided with Defendant May's vehicle. As Plaintiff was reversing, Defendant May shot at Plaintiff multiple times, resulting in significant injuries.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1) Negligence, 2) Battery, 3) Violation of Civil Code 52.1 (Tom Bane Act), and 4) Ralph Act (Civil Code 51.7).

The following motions filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles ("Defendant") are on calendar: - Motion to Deem Responses to Defendant's Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted - Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Production, Set One - Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One

Legal Standards

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to demand for inspection, the party to whom the request is waives directedany objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿¿The party who propounded the discovery request may bring a motion to compel responses to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300, subd. (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290, subd. (a).)¿¿The party who propounded the discovery request may bring a motion to compel responses to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290, subd. (b).)

Discussion

The Court summarizes the relevant procedural history as follows: - April 13, 2026: Defendant served Requests for Admission, Set One, Requests for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff. (Nguyen Decls., P. 4, Exh. A.) Defendant granted Plaintiff a three-week extension, where the responses were due on June 5, 2026. (Nguyen Decls., P. 5, Exh. B.) - June 5, 2026: Plaintiff served unverified responses to Defendant, containing objections (hereinafter, "Initial Responses"). (Nguyen Decls., P. 6, Exh.

C.) - June 16, 2026: Defendant sent a meet and confer correspondence regarding the Initial Responses (Nguyen Decls., P. 7, Exh. D.) - June 22, 2026: Plaintiff attempted to contact the client regarding the discovery between June 4 to June 22, 2026. (Prado Decls., P. 4.) The parties met and conferred, wherein Defendant granted Plaintiff an extension to provide further responses and verifications by July 17, 2026. Plaintiff confirmed. (Nguyen Decls., P.P. 8-10, Exhs. E-G; Prado Decls., P. 5.) - June 26, 2026: Plaintiff's counsel called Defense counsel to inform him there were issues contacting the client due to his medical condition, and that they would need time to arrange an in person meeting with the client to collect discovery responses. (Prado Decls., P.P. 7-8.) - July 17, 2026: Plaintiff requested another extension, but Defendant declined, asserting that there was no legitimate reason for an extension. (Nguyen Decls., P.P. 11-12, Exhs.

H-I; Prado Decls., P. 12.) The same day, Plaintiff served unverified further responses (hereinafter, "Further Responses"). (Nguyen Decls., P. 13, Exh. J.) - July 23, 2026: Defendant sent Plaintiff a correspondence again requesting Plaintiff to provide further responses and verifications. (Nguyen Decls., P. 14, Exh. K.) - July 30, 2026: Defendant again requested that Plaintiff provide verifications, and Plaintiff agreed (Nguyen Decls., P.P. 15-16, Exhs. L-M.) - August 3, 2026: Defendant filed these Motions. - August 3 and 4, 2026: Plaintiff's counsel had met with the client and informed Defense counsel that Plaintiff would be providing further responses by August 7, 2026. (Prado Decls., P. 14, Exh. 3.)

Plaintiff provided verifications for the Initial Responses and the Further Responses. (Prado Decls., P.P. 15-16, Exhs. 4-5.) - August 7, 2026: Plaintiff provided a second set of further responses (hereinafter, "Second Set of Further Responses"). (Prado Decls., P. 17, Exhs. 6-8.)

Defendant argues that, as of date, Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses in compliance with the Code. (Nguyen Decls., P. 17.) Defendant asserts that unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. Defendant thus moves to deem the Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted, and to compel responses to the Requests for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

Defendant requests $7,800.00 in sanctions for four discovery motions (including a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, set for hearing on October 6, 2626). (Nguyen Decls., P. 18.)

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the issues in these Motions are now moot where verifications to the responses were provided. Plaintiff has responded a completely as possible to the requests. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff requests sanctions to oppose the three instant Motions and attend the hearings. The Court notes that each opposition requests a different amount of sanctions ranging from $2,200.00 to $5,200.00.

In reply, Defendant asserts that "the sole remaining issue before the Court is not whether Defendant is entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, but how much it is entitled to for having been forced to file its [Motions]." (Reply, 2:6-8.) Defendant highlights that Plaintiff provided verified responses that substantially complied with Code only after Defendant filed this Motion on August 3, 2026. (Suppl. Nguyen Decls. P. 10.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's most recent extension request was unsupported by any evidence or specific explanation of Plaintiff's medical condition. (Suppl. Nguyen Decls. P. 4, Exh. A.) Defendant notes that Plaintiff's opposition fails to explain why Plaintiff delayed in contacting the client until June 4, 2026 when the discovery was propounded on April 13, 2026.

The Court initially notes that no meet and confer is required for motion to compel initial responses. The Court finds that the substantive issues in these Motions are moot, provided that Plaintiff served verifications as to the Initial Responses and the Further Responses on August 4, 2026, as well as the Second Set of Further Responses on August 7, 2026.

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted, Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Production, Set One, and Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, are DENIED as MOOT.

Sanctions

If a motion to compel response is filed, the court "shall" impose a monetary sanction against the losing party¿ unless ¿it finds that party made or opposed the motion "with substantial justification" or other reasons make the sanction "unjust."¿(Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2031.300, subd. (c) [requests for production], 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories].)

"It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction. . .on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (2)(c).)

"The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though. . .the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

As conceded by the parties, the only issue remaining is sanctions. The Court finds that both parties met and conferred in good faith even where no meet and confer requirement was required. Defendant granted two extensions to Plaintiff. The Court finds that it was reasonable for Defendant to decline a third extension, where Plaintiff's counsel still was unable to provide Plaintiff's medical documentation regarding his mental capacity.

The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to compensation for the time spent filing these motions to compel verifications and supplemental responses to the discovery requests. However, the Court finds that the sanctions amount requested is exorbitant considering the simplicity of the issues and that each Motion is essentially identical. Thus, Defendant is awarded reduced sanctions in the amount of $750.00 in total for all three Motions.

Case Number: 24NWCV01744 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: L

On the Court's own motion, Defendant Chedraui USA, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED to September 15, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. L. Defendant to give notice.

Case Number: 24NWCV02245 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: L

Plaintiffs Hector Recinos and Cristina Jimenes' Motion for Prejudgment Interest is GRANTED, in part. Plaintiffs are entitled to $3,228.03 in prejudgment interest. Plaintiffs to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law action regarding a 2020 Ford Explorer. On July 23, 2024, Plaintiffs Hector Recinos and Cristina Jimenes ("Plaintiffs") filed this action against Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Defendant") and Does 1 to 10. On September 4, 2024, Defendant filed the Answer.

The case came on for jury trial. The returned a special verdict awarding Plaintiffs $44,139.38 on their cause of action for breach of express warranty and $10,000 on their cause of action for breach of implied warranty. (4/15/26 Special Verdict.)

Plaintiffs now move for prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3287.