Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 03/14/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Requests for Admission in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Vincent Lara and Joseph Lara’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel defendant Alexis Paige Lewis (“Lewis”) to serve verified further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set One, numbers 1-11, 20-25, and 40 is ruled upon as follows.

The Court notes Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities is unsigned by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Joseph Lara, although all other supporting papers contain an appropriate signature. Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum is also unsigned by Mr. Lara.

This action arises out of the passing of Plaintiffs’ father, Alan Keith Lara (“Alan”) and a dispute regarding the beneficiaries of his annuity account (the “Annuity”). Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 23, 2023, against Lewis for intentional interference with expected inheritance and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs allege Lewis engaged in a scheme to defraud Alan of his retirement savings, that Plaintiffs expected to receive the full value of Alan’s estate (estimated to be over $4 million prior to Lewis’ alleged interference), and that Lewis caused Alan to withdraw a significant amount from his retirement to be given directly to her.

Lewis filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs on August 23, 2023, for breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations.

Plaintiffs served Requests for Admission, Set One, on Lewis on August 29, 2023. (Declaration of Joseph A. Lara (“Lara Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exh. A.) On October 3, 2023, Lewis served her responses. (Lara Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) The parties met-and-conferred regarding the responses, and Lewis indicated amended responses would be provided. (Lara Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. C.) When no amended responses were provided, Plaintiffs followed-up on November 20, 2023, and did not receive a response as of the date this motion was filed (November 22, 2023). (Lara Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. D.) Plaintiffs contend many of the responses are deficient because they do not respond to the request and/or deny the request on information and belief without any reference to diligence or inquiry as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220(c).

On October 27, 2023, Plaintiffs also filed a special motion to strike the Cross-Complaint of Lewis pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Plaintiffs’ motion was heard on March 12, 2024.

Lewis opposes this motion only on the ground that all discovery was stayed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(g) after Plaintiffs’ filed their special motion to strike. Section 425.16(g) provides: 'All discovery proceedings in the action shall be

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 03/14/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Requests for Admission in Department 54

stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(g).) 'The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion.' (Id.) During the stay, the Court may not proceed to hear discovery motions, even those that were pending at the time the anti-SLAPP motion was filed. (Britts v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1128.)

Lewis’ argument is rejected. The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs’ special motion to strike the Cross-Complaint imposes a discovery stay as to the entire action. A general principle exists “that a cross-complaint is a separate action, severable from the original complaint and action.” (Coachella Valley Mosquito v. City of Indio (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 12, 16.) Thus, Plaintiffs’ special motion to strike would place a stay on all discovery in the action concerning the Cross-Complaint, but not discovery related to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which is what is implicated by the RFAs at issue by this motion.

Lewis raises no other argument, besides arguing against the imposition of sanctions, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. As a result, the motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Lewis shall serve verified further response to RFAs 1-11, 20-25, and 40 no later than March 28, 2024.

On reply Plaintiffs note that Lewis served amended responses concurrently with her opposition. Thus, to the extent Lewis has already served verified further responses to the subject discovery, the responses need not be re-served. To the extent Plaintiffs argue the amended responses are deficient, this is not before the Court on this motion. Plaintiffs may file an appropriate motion to compel after engaging in good faith meetand-confer efforts with Lewis regarding the amended responses.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $810 is DENIED. Mr. Lara (who is an attorney) is representing both himself and his brother in this action. Mr. Lara has requested one half of the fees for the time he spent on this motion on behalf of his brother. However, plaintiffs in pro per are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees for their own time spent on litigation. (See Witte v. Kaufman (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1201; Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292.) On reply, Plaintiffs cite to Rickley v.

Goodfriend (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1528 as support that they are entitled to recover fees in the form of sanctions. Rickley is distinguishable because is concerned whether the rule against awarding fees to a pro per plaintiff should apply in enforcing post-judgment contempt proceedings, which are quasi-criminal in nature. That situation is not presented here. Thus, the Court finds the general rule that a pro per attorney cannot recover fees applies.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 03/14/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Response to Requests for Admission in Department 54

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.