Skip to main content
Skip to main content.

Jury Scam alert -

The Santa Barbara Superior Court has received complaints about individuals trying to scam members of the public by pretending to be court officers or officials. The Jury Services office of the Santa Barbara Superior Court does not call citizens to request payments for failing to appear for jury duty. California law does not permit citizens to pay a fine in lieu of jury duty. If you receive such a call simply hang up and, if the scammer persists, call your local law enforcement agency. Learn more about the recent scam warning.

Notice to Jurors:

Prospective jurors summoned for jury service can expect to receive their jury summons in postcard form. Please check your mail for a postcard with important instructions to fulfil your jury service. Visit the Jury Services page for more information.

Charles Davin La Roche v Sunho Kim et al

Case Number

24CV00872

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 03/17/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel (3)

Tentative Ruling

On August 12, 2024, defendants served plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set 1), Special Interrogatories (Set 1), and Requests for Production (Set 1). Two two-week extensions of time to respond were provided by defense counsel, but responses were not timely provided. After multiple requests that plaintiff provide verified responses, without objection, plaintiff’s counsel advised that he had lost contact with his client and had been searching for him to no avail, asking that defendants hold off on filing motions to compel. Defense counsel requested that plaintiff provide a new proposed deadline, and ultimately proposed a 30 day extension, to December 9, 2024. On December 18, 2024, after having received no discovery responses, and no response to an inquiry asking whether plaintiff’s counsel had located his client and would be providing responses, defendants advised that they would be filing motions to compel.

On December 20, 2024, defendants filed the current motions, seeking orders compelling plaintiff to provide verified responses to the discovery which had been served, without objection, and for sanctions of $1,085.00 against plaintiff and his counsel for each of the motions to compel interrogatory responses, and for $1,137.50 for the motion to compel production, for a total of  $3,307.50 in sanctions. Each of those requested totals included $717.50 in fees that defendants anticipated incurring, in drafting additional papers and appearing at the hearing (a total of $2,152.50, of the requested $3,307.50).

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of non-opposition to the motions, but requests that sanctions not be imposed against him personally, because he has acted with diligence in attempting to locate plaintiff, as reflected in his pending motion to withdraw as attorney of record, set for hearing June 16, 2025.

The Court will grant the motions, and will order plaintiff to provide verified responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set 1), Special Interrogatories (Set 1), and Requests for Production (Set 1), without objection, no later than April 14, 2025. The Court has reviewed counsel’s motion to withdraw, and agrees that he has acted with diligence in his attempts to locate plaintiff. Consequently, the Court will award sanctions of $2,000.00 to defendants, payable by plaintiff only.

Was this helpful?

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.