Judge: Andre De La Cruz, Case: 2021-01212416, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling
1. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record filed by Counsel for Lan-Anh Nguyen on 3/28/23
Alessandro G. Assanti (“Moving Attorney”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendants Lan Anh Nguyen and Binh C. Nguyen.
The Motions are unopposed and Moving Attorney has stated a sufficient basis for permissive withdrawal under the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16. Service on the clients is proper and all other parties have been served as well.
The Court notes that the mandatory proposed order form was filed with respect to the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Lan Anh Nguyen. See ROA 89. However, no proposed order form has been filed with respect to Binh C. Nguyen.
Accordingly, the Motions will be GRANTED, on the condition that Moving Attorney provide the mandatory Proposed Order Form (MC-053) with respect to Binh C. Nguyen at or before the hearing date.
Moving Attorney to give notice.
2. Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record filed by Binh C. Nguyen on
3/28/23
See, supra.
3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories filed by RWB Real Estate Investments, LLC on 3/13/23
Plaintiff RWB Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendants Riverbank Copperstone, LLC dba “Tutti Frutti Frozen Yogurt”; Binh C. Nguyen; Lan-Anh Nguyen (“Defendants”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 and imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $750.00.
A party may move for an order compelling further responses to interrogatories if the party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of the documents is inadequate, or an objection is without merit or too general. See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).
Monetary sanctions shall be imposed against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless the court finds that the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of monetary sanctions unjust. Id. § 2030.300(d).
Defendants’ responses to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 state:
Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad based on the discovery performed to date. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, §431.30, Defendant’s denial of the material allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint is in part a general denial and requires no facts to support it. In addition to the affirmative defenses contained in this Defendant’s responsive pleading, they were plead to protect the Defendant’s rights during the initial stages of litigation. Discovery and investigation has only recently begun. Plaintiff is free to re-propound this interrogatory one discovery and investigation are complete. Without waiving said objections, Discovery is continuing and it reserves the right to amend once information is ascertained during the investigation and discovery of this case.
Declaration of Corey E. Taylor, Exs. A-C.
Defendants agreed to provide supplemental responses but failed to follow through. Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff has incurred attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $1,000.00 as a result of bringing this Motion. Id. ¶ 7.
The responses contain no substance and instead only assert boilerplate objections. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants must provide supplemental responses asserting all facts that support their denials and affirmative defenses, all witnesses with knowledge of those facts, and all documents in support. If there are no such facts, witnesses, or documents at this time, then Defendants should so state. Defendants cannot refuse to answer the interrogatory simply because discovery is ongoing.
The Court finds the sanctions requested by Plaintiff to be reasonable and supported by counsel’s declaration.
Thus, the Motion is GRANTED in its entirety. Further responses are to be served and sanctions are to be paid to the moving party within 20 calendar days.
Plaintiff to give notice.