Juan Gutierrez v. JM Roofing Company, Inc., et al

Case Number

24CV05331

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 07/21/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) Mtn re Granting Leave to File Cross-Complaint; 2) Mtn re Compelling Form Roggs; Sanc; 3) Mtn re Compelling Resp to Special Roggs; Sanc; 4) Mtn re Compelling Resp to Req for Prod of Docs; Sanc; 5) Mtn re Est Truth of RFA to be Added; Sanc

Tentative Ruling

Juan Gutierrez v. JM Roofing Company, Inc., et al.  

Case No. 24CV05331
    
HEARING DATE: July 21, 2025                    

HEARING:        1. Motion of Defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for Order Granting Leave to File Cross-Complaint
        
        2. Motion of Defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories; Request for Monetary Sanctions

        3. Motion of Defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories; Request for Monetary Sanctions

        4. Motion of Defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production of Documents; Request for Monetary Sanctions

        5. Motion of Defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for Order Establishing Truth of Requests for Admissions to be Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions

ATTORNEYS:    For Plaintiff Juan Gutierrez.: Raymond Ghermezian 
            For Defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church,     Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare     Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and     Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los     Angeles Risk Management Corporation: Fred Grannis
            For Defendant JM Roofing Company Inc. dba Action Roofing:     Thomas Friedman
        
TENTATIVE RULING: 

For the reasons set forth herein:

1.    The motion of defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for order granting leave to file cross-complaint is granted.
a.    The moving parties shall separately file and serve their cross-complaint no later than July 25, 2025, and file proof of service with the court.
2.    The motion of defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for order compelling plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories, set one, and request for monetary sanctions is granted.
a.    Plaintiff shall serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, no later than August 4, 2025.
b.    Monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of moving parties, and against plaintiff, in the amount of $564.86, to be paid to counsel for the moving parties no later than August 25, 2025.
3.     The motion of defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for order compelling plaintiff to respond to special interrogatories, set one, and request for monetary sanctions is granted.
a.    Plaintiff shall serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, no later than August 4, 2025.
b.    Monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of moving parties, and against plaintiff, in the amount of $564.86, to be paid to counsel for the moving parties no later than August 25, 2025.
4.    The motion of defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for order compelling plaintiff to respond to requests for production of documents, set one, and request for monetary sanctions is granted.
a.    Plaintiff shall serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections other than those based on privilege, no later than August 4, 2025.
b.    Monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of moving parties, and against plaintiff, in the amount of $564.86, to be paid to counsel for the moving parties no later than August 25, 2025.
5.    The motion of defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for order establishing truth of requests for admissions, set one, to be admitted and request for monetary sanctions is granted in part and denied in part as follows.
a.    The requests for admission, set one, are deemed admitted.
b.    Monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of moving parties, and against plaintiff, in the amount of $727.36, to be paid to counsel for the moving parties no later than August 25, 2025.

Background:

This action was commenced on September 25, 2024, by the filing of the Judicial Council form complaint by plaintiff Juan Gutierrez against defendants JM Roofing Company, Inc. dba Action Roofing (“JM Roofing”), Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation (collectively “the Church”) for General Negligence and Premises Liability.

The complaint alleges that on October 19, 2022, plaintiff was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the Church and was in the process of installing a water pump at Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church when a Doe defendant negligently set up a ladder at an unsafe proximity to plaintiff and dropped, or caused to fall, a large heavy object which struck plaintiff on the head causing him injuries.

JM Roofing answered the complaint on December 12, 2024, with a general denial and 20 affirmative defenses.

The Church defendants answered the complaint on December 27, 2024, with a general denial and 14 affirmative defenses.

The Church defendants move for leave of court to file a cross-complaint against JM Roofing. JM Roofing opposes the motion.

The Church defendants also move to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, as well as move for an order that their requests for admissions be deemed admitted. The Church defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with each of the discovery motions. There is no opposition to any of the discovery motions.

Analysis:

    Leave to File Cross-Complaint

The Church defendants seek leave to file their cross-complaint against JM Roofing for: (1) Express Indemnity, (2) Breach of Written Contract, (3) Implied Indemnity, (4) Equitable Indemnity/Apportionment, (5) Contribution, and (6) Declaratory Relief.

“(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.
“(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.
“(c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50.)

While the Church defendants would need to seek leave to file a cross-complaint against plaintiff, by the plain language of the statute, the Church defendants do not need leave to file their cross-complaint against JM Roofing. JM Roofing has not filed a complaint or cross-complaint against the Church defendants and the court has not yet set a date for trial. 

Even if leave were required, the leave would be granted.

“A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)

“A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.)

The Church defendants argue that there is a written indemnity agreement with JM Roofing that requires JM Roofing to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Church against personal injury actions such as the one brought by plaintiff. The Church argues that they did not earlier file a cross-complaint because they were trying to obtain voluntary compliance with JM Roofing regarding the indemnity agreement, but that JM Roofing has thus far refused.

JM Roofing opposes the motion arguing that “the contract that is the basis for the Church’s Motion and Cross-Complaint contains terms mandating Mediation prior to filing any lawsuit. Because no mediation has occurred, the Church’s Motion must be denied as the Church’s lawsuit is barred by the express terms of the contract on which its claims are based.” (Opp., p. 2, ll. 11-15.)

JM Roofing’s argument is not a proper ground for denial of a motion to file a cross-complaint. Rather, it may be grounds for asserting an appropriate affirmative defense, demurrer, or other legally appropriate motion.

Even though not necessary, the court will grant the motion for leave to file the cross-complaint.

    Discovery

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery, may not use its discretion to extend the limits on discovery beyond those authorized by the Legislature, and should prefer partial to outright denials of discovery.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

1.    Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

On January 3, 2025, the Church served set one of: (1) Form Interrogatories (FIs), (2) Special Interrogatories (SIs), and (3) Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs) on plaintiff. (Grannis Decl., ¶ 2) [Note: As the three declarations filed by counsel for the Church regarding the FIs, SIs, and RFPs are substantially similar, they will be referred to collectively unless otherwise necessary.]

With respect to the FIs and SIs, plaintiff’s responses were originally due on February 5, 2025, but that date was agreed to be extended to March 7, 2025. (Grannis Decl., ¶ 3.) No responses were served by the agreed upon date. (Ibid.)

With respect to the RFPs, plaintiff’s responses were originally due on February 5, 2025, but that date was agreed to be extended by an additional 30 days. (Grannis RFP Decl., ¶ 3.) No responses were served by the agreed upon date. (Ibid.)

To date, no responses have been received by the Church, nor has plaintiff responded to meet and confer efforts by counsel for the Church.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to 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. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

The Church properly served plaintiff with FIs and SIs and plaintiff has failed to respond. Plaintiff will be ordered to provide code compliant responses, without objections, to the interrogatories.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part: 
“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made. 
“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

The Church properly served plaintiff with RFPs and plaintiff has failed to respond. Plaintiff will be ordered to provide code compliant responses, without objections except those based on claims of privilege, to the RFPs.

2.    Monetary Sanctions

The Church seeks sanctions against plaintiff of $889.86 for each of the motions to compel. This amount includes anticipated attorney’s fees of one hour, for each motion, to prepare a reply and attend the hearing, as well as filing fees. The Church’s counsel charges $325 per hour, which the court finds reasonable.

The court “shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to [or requests for production of documents, requests for admissions, 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. §§ 2031.300, subd. (c); 2033.290, subd. (d); 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification and no other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. 

Attorney’s fees and costs for bringing the motion will be granted. However, as there was no opposition, no reply was necessary, and it is questionable whether there will be any need for the Church to present argument regarding the motions. The anticipated time for preparing a reply and attending the hearing, for each motion, will be deducted from the requested amount. Therefore, sanctions of $564.86 will be granted for each motion.

3.    Requests for Admissions

On January 3, 2025, the Church served RFAs, set one, on plaintiff. (Grannis Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s responses were originally due by February 5, 2025, but that time was extended by 30 days. (Id., at ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff has never responded to the RFAs or responded to attempts by the Church to meet and confer. (Grannis Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.)

RFAs “differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery. Rather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof.” (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.010 provides, in pertinent part: “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”

“The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subds. (a-b).

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The requesting 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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
“(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

As noted above, plaintiff has failed to respond and has failed to file any opposition to the present motion. As such, it is mandatory that the court order that the matters specified in the RFA’s be admitted, as well as impose monetary sanctions.

The Church seeks monetary sanctions of $1,052.36. As with the other discovery motions, this amount includes one hour of anticipated time for preparing a reply and attending the hearing. That one hour will be deducted for the same reasons discussed above. Monetary sanctions will be awarded in the amount of $727.36.