Lorenz Roseman v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center, et al.

Cal.App.4th 140, 160-161(internal quotations omitted). The Court deems that, based on the nature of this case and the complexity of this case, the action does not warrant the addition of any multiplier or a deduction through the imposition of a negative multiplier.

The Court finds that the hourly rate charged was excessive considering the nature of this case, the settlement amount, the attorneys' experience and background, the hourly rate in the community, and the type of work undertaken by counsel. The Court finds that $350/hour is a reasonable hourly rate for the type of work, case, and nature of this case.

The Court declines to reduce the hours spent litigating this action. While there may be certain areas of billing and time spent where an opposing party might have grounds to question, the Court cannot state that the hours expended were unnecessary or unreasonable.

However, the Court does reduce the amount requested, that is simply based on an estimated time, to review the opposition, prepare the Reply, and attend the hearing. Plaintiff requested $4,932.00 for this amount. This amount is reduced to $1,500.00.

The Court therefore finds that 36.1 hours is a reasonable amount of time expended at the hourly rate of $350.00/hour, plus $1,500 for preparing the reply and appearing at the hearing, for a total amount of $14,135.00. Costs and expenses in the amount of $598.24 are reasonable in amount and the costs are recoverable items of costs under CCP Sec. 1033.5.

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, in part. Thus, the Court fixes reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $14,135.00. The Court fixes the amount of costs and expenses in the amount of $598.24. The Court awards attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the total amount of $14,733.24. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Tues day, August 25, 2026 Department M Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Lorenz Roseman v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center, et al.

1. Torrance Memorial Medical Center's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two 2. Torrance Memorial Medical Center's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One Admitted 3. Torrance Memorial Medical Center's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set Two Admitted 4. Torrance Memorial Medical Center's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set Three Admitted 5. Torrance Memorial Medical Center's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set Four Admitted

TENTATIVE RULING Torrance Memorial Medical Center's Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions, Sets 1 to 4, Admitted are denied. Torrance Memorial Medical Center's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two is deemed moot.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 17, 2025. Plaintiff alleges medical negligence against Defendants.

Motions to Compel/Deem Admitted CCP Sec. 2031.300 states: "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: The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand." (CCP Sec. 2031.300(b)).

Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280 states: "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."

Defendant served upon Plaintiff Requests for Admissions, Set One, on February 10, 2026, Requests for Admissions, Set Two, on February 18, 2026, Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, on February 18, 2026, Requests for Admissions, Set Three, on March 13, 2026, and Requests for Admissions, Set Four, on April 22, 2026. (Decls., Scott Greene, P.P. 2-3). Defendant contends that no responses were served to the discovery requests. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed written oppositions to the motions. Plaintiff indicates that new counsel was recently substituted into this case and that verified responses were served on August 12, 2026. (Decls., Axel A. Morales). Attached to the declarations were the responses that were served. The responses to the requests for admissions are in substantial compliance with CCP Sec. 2033.220.

Defendant contends that the responses to the requests for production of documents are deficient. However, the propriety of those responses would be the subject of a motion to compel further responses after a proper meet and confer, and an IDC, if necessary. Therefore, the motions to deem Requests for Admissions, Set One to Four, admitted are denied. The motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, is deemed moot.

Sanctions Defendant's requests for monetary sanctions are denied. T he notices of the motions are defective. "A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought." Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.040.

Here, the notices of motions did not seek any sanctions. Defendant's belated attempts to request sanctions in the Replies do not cure this defect. Thus, the requests for sanction are denied. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: 26TRCV00062 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: M LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Department M