Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV24631, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 21STCV24631    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiffs Wei Sun and his 81+ year old mother Shuzheng Zhou (Plaintiffs) sue Defendant/Cross-Complainant Li-Fa Guo, Defendant Re/Max 2000 Realty, Defendant Monnie Hui Min Chen, and Does 1 through 50 pursuant to a July 2, 2021 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability, (2) Negligence (Civil Code §§ 1714(a), 3333), (3) Retaliatory Eviction, (4) Breach of Quiet Enjoyment, (5) Nuisance, and (6) Constructive Eviction.

The claims arise from allegations that, among other things, Plaintiffs experienced uninhabitable conditions at their former rental home located at 17966 Sunrise Drive, Rowland Heights, CA 91748 (Property). These conditions included mold infestations, faulty plumbing, lack of water service, and water damage in the walls and ceilings, which caused Plaintiffs Sun and Zhou physical injury, emotional distress, and other damages. Defendant Guo is alleged to be the Property’s owner and Defendant Re/Max 2000 Realty is alleged to have been the brokerage with which listing agent and Property manager Defendant Monnie Hui Min Chen was affiliated.

On September 6, 2022, Defendant Guo filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs, which alleges claims of (1) Fraud, (2) Conspiracy to Defraud, (3) Breach of Contract, and (4) Negligence.

The claims arise from allegations that, among other things, the parties entered into a residential lease agreement pursuant to which Plaintiffs were required to assume financial responsibility for all repairs on the Property and that, contrary to the parties’ agreement, Plaintiff demanded that Guo pay for the repair of a black mold infestation. Guo alleges that Plaintiffs represented to Guo that repairs were necessary because the mold was damaging the Property and could render the Property unlivable. Guo alleges to have responded by requesting that Plaintiffs move out during repairs, which Plaintiffs refused to do unless they were paid several million dollars, with Plaintiffs refusing to be temporarily relocated, allow repairs to the Property, or allow inspections of the Property unless their financial demands were met. Guo alleges that he was not able to inspect the Property until after November 2021—by which time Plaintiffs had moved out of the Property and sued Guo—with the inspection showing that Plaintiffs’ water damage and mold claims were true but exaggerated. Guo also alleges that it was Plaintiffs’ conduct that led to the water and mold damage.

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs demurred to the Cross-Complaint’s fraud and conspiracy to defraud claims. The motion was served on Defendant Guo’s counsel’s office in Diamond Bar, California.

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiffs moved to compel further interrogatory responses from Defendant Chen. The motion was served on Defendant Chen’s counsel’s office in Diamond Bar, California. (Defendants Guo and Chen were then represented by counsel Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates.)

These motions were ultimately set for hearing on October 18, 2023.

On June 13, 2023, the Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates moved to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Chen.

On June 21, 2023, the Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates moved to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Guo.

On August 14, 2023, Defendant Guo filed a substitution of attorney, noticing that Kathleen Carter, Esq. of Messner Reeves, LLP would be representing Defendant Guo as to the Complaint only.

On September 1, 2023, the Court granted the Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates’ motions to be relieved as counsel for Defendants Guo and Chen. The minutes note that Defendant Guo would represent himself as to the Cross-Complaint.

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiffs noticed Defendant Guo’s failure to oppose the demurrer and Defendant Chen’s failure to oppose the motion to compel further.

On October 11, 2023, the Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates filed a declaration relating to the sanctions sought by Plaintiffs’ motion against Defendant Chen, arguing that such sanctions are not merited against them.

Plaintiffs’ demurrer and motion to compel are now before the Court.

Demurrer

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; see Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) This device can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a [general] demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) In testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67.) A demurrer, however, “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228, disapproved on other grounds, Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1162.) The face of the complaint includes exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence. (Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in White v. Cridlebaugh (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 506, 521.)

Cross-Complaint, First Cause of Action, Fraud: SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

Intentional misrepresentation involves “(1) a knowingly false representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce reliance; (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages.” (Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816.)

Allegations of fraud “must be pled with more detail than other causes of action.” (Apollo Capital Fund, LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 240.) “Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged … factually and specifically[,] and the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings … will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect. [Citations.]” (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216, superseded by statute as stated in Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) “[G]eneral and conclusory allegations do not suffice.” (Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184 [citations omitted].) Fittingly, a plaintiff pleading fraud must plead facts showing “how, when, where, to whom, and by what means” the allegedly fraudulent representations were tendered. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

The Cross-Complaint’s first cause of action alleges fraud against Plaintiffs based on Plaintiffs engaging “in a series of fraudulent representations including, but not limited to inflating the severity of the water damage and mold, making false written statements to Guo about the causes of the damage and mold, and actively preventing Guo from having inspectors verify their claims (which would have uncovered their fraud).” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 30; see Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 9-28, 29-33.)

In their demurrer, Plaintiffs argue that the fraud claim fails to sufficiently allege reliance, the dates, who, and means of the alleged misrepresentations, or an intent to deceive or induce reliance. (Demurrer, pp. 7-9.)

No opposition was made by Defendant Guo, who is self-represented as to the Cross-Complaint as of September 1, 2023 but whose former counsel received notice of the demurrer in October 2022.

The Court finds in favor of Plaintiffs.

The Court first notes that the Cross-Complaint is vague as to the “how, when, where, to whom, and by what means” misrepresentations were made to Defendant Guo. (Lazar v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645.) For example, it is unclear which Plaintiff made the misrepresentations, what was said, when it was said, and the form of communication that was used.

Moreover, the Cross-Complaint alleges reliance by stating that “[h]ad Guo known the true and actual facts [i.e., exaggeration as to the mold in the Property], Guo would not have taken such actions” and that Defendant Guo’s “reliance on … [the] misrepresentations was justified.” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 31.) However, such a statement is conclusory. The Court is unclear how Guo relied on the alleged misrepresentation and why that reliance was justified.

Plaintiff’s demurrer to the first cause of action is thus SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

Cross-Complaint, Second Cause of Action, Conspiracy to Defraud: SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

“Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort. Instead, it is ‘a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. [Citation.] By participation in a civil conspiracy, a coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. [Citation.] In this way, a coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors.” (City of Industry v. City of Fillmore (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 211-212, quoting Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510-511; see City of Industry v. City of Fillmore, supra, at p. 212 [“constru[ing] the fifth count for fraud and the tenth count for conspiracy together as a single count for fraud”].)

Based on this authority, the Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s demurrer to the Cross-Complaint’s conspiracy claim, without leave to amend.

Motion to Compel Further Responses, Form Interrogatories

Legal Standard

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403 [interrogatories and demands to produce].)

To compel a further response to interrogatories, the movant can show that: (1) the responding party’s answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)); (2) the responding party’s exercise of the option to produce documents in response to an interrogatory was unwarranted or the required specification of those documents was inadequate (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(2)); and (3) the responding party’s objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(3); see, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 [defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to establish good cause or prove merits of underlying claim before propounding interrogatories without merit]).

Order Compelling Further Interrogatory Responses: GRANTED.

Plaintiffs move to compel supplemental responses from Defendant Monnie Hui-Min Chen to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories (FROGs), Set One, Nos. 15.1 and 17.1, which involve interrogatories that seek responses that expound on Defendant Chen’s denials and affirmative defenses to the Complaint and on Defendant Chen’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (RFAs), Set One, Nos. 9-11 and 29-31.

Plaintiffs argue that the responses to these interrogatories are evasive and not Code compliant. (See Mot., pp. 7-13; Mot., Separate Statement, pp. 2-10.)

No opposition was made by Defendant Chen, who is self-represented as of September 1, 2023 but whose former counsel received notice of the motion to compel further in May 2023.

The Court finds in favor of Plaintiffs.

A review of Defendant Chen’s responses to FROGs, Set One, Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 shows that they are evasive and non-responsive.

As to interrogatory No. 15.1, Defendant Chen’s responses (including supplemental responses) fail to elaborate the grounds for Defendant Chen’s 21 affirmative defenses (subsection (a) of No. 15.1). Defendant Chen has instead provided a one-size-fits-all, ‘I had no duty’ to Plaintiffs’ response, which does not sufficiently elaborate on, among other things, how Plaintiffs’ hands are unclean, how Plaintiffs waived their rights, or how misjoinder of parties, laches, standing, or statute of limitations issues have arisen. (See Mot., Separate Statement; see also 7/21/22 Answer.) Moreover, as to subsection (c) of this interrogatory, Defendant Chen fails to identify documents that support her representations of ‘lack of duty,’ instead simply stating that after a diligent search, she has been unable to locate documents that support Plaintiffs’ claims, which is evasive. Subsection (c) requests documents supporting Defendant Chen’s grounds for denials and affirmative defenses, not documents supporting Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendant Chen has not provided Code-compliant responses.

As to interrogatory No. 17.1, Defendant Chen’s responses fail to elaborate on the grounds for Defendant Chen’s objections to RFAs, Set One, Nos. 9-11 and 29-31, as well as the documents supporting those objections.

The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.

Sanctions: GRANTED, in Part.

The court must 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 further 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The Court finds that sanctions are merited against Defendant Chen because, though she did not oppose this motion, and despite providing three sets of responses to FROGS, Set One, Nos. 15.1 and 17.1, Defendant Chen’s responses to these interrogatories are wholly evasive and non-responsive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The Court considers the declaration filed on October 11, 2023 by the Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates and finds that Defendant Chen’s counsel provides no grounds for this Court to determine that they should not be jointly and severally liable for sanctions. Plaintiffs met and conferred regarding Defendant Chen’s interrogatory responses, receiving two supplements from Defendant Chen prior to the Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates withdrawing as counsel. Nevertheless, those responses were, as discussed above, completely deficient. The work of the Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates was integral to those deficiencies. The fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel chose to file this motion rather than continue to meet and confer or engage in what is now an optional Informal Discovery Conference is understandable, given this history.

Last, the Court determines that the amount sought by Plaintiffs in monetary sanctions—$3,210—is reasonable up to $2,510, representing a recovery by Plaintiffs for: (1) the $60 motion filing fee; and (2) counsel’s work on this motion and the time expected to be expended at this hearing, minus two hours that Plaintiffs’ counsel expected to expend replying to any opposition to this motion. (Mot., Freedman Decl., ¶¶ 18-19 [seeking sanctions at rate of $350 per hour for six hours expended on this motion, two hours expected to be expended in replying to any opposition, and one hour attending this hearing, plus a $60 motion filing fee].)

The request for sanctions is thus GRANTED, in Part, as to Defendant Chen and the Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,510.

Conclusion

I.

Plaintiffs Cross-Defendants Wei Sun and Shuzheng Zhou’s Demurrer to Cross-Complaint is (1) SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, as to the Cross-Complaint’s first cause of action, and (2) SUSTAINED, without leave to amend, as to the Cross-Complaint’s second cause of action.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Li-Fa Guo is given 20 calendar days’ leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint, beginning at the time of notice of this ruling. As he is representing himself, the Court reminds him that failure to timely file an Amended Cross-Complaint could lead to dismissal of his action against Cross-Defendants. He is also admonished not to add any new causes of action without leave of the Court.

II.

Plaintiffs Cross-Defendants Wei Sun and Shuzheng Zhou’s Motion to Compel Defendant Monnie Chen to Provide Third Supplemental Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Monnie Hiu Min Chen is ORDERED to provide code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 15.1 and 17.1, within 20 calendar days of notice of this ruling.

The corresponding Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $3,210.00 Against Defendant and Counsel of Record is GRANTED, in Part, in the amount of $2,510.00.

Defendant Monnie Hiu Min Chen and the Law Offices of Bin Li & Associates are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to remit these monies to Plaintiffs Cross-Defendants Wei Sun and Shuzheng Zhou within 20 calendar days of notice of this ruling.