Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV45077, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45077    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

 

SUK YOUNG YUN, an Individual; MYUNG JA YUN, an Individual,

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

CAROLINE KYUNG LEE, an Individual; FREEMAN WANG, an Individual; YOUR HOME SOLD GUARANTEED REALTY INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,

                        Defendants.

______________________________________

CAROLINE KYUNG LEE, an Individual; FREEMAN WANG, an Individual; Your Home Sold Guaranteed Realty, Inc., a California Corporation,

                        Cross-Complainant,

            v.

STEPHANIE Y. YUN, an Individual; and ROES 1-20, INCLUSIVE,

                        Cross-Defendants.

______________________________________

STEPHANIE Y. YUN, an individual,

                        Cross-Complainant,

            v.

CAROLINE KYUNG LEE, an individual, DOES 1-50, inclusive,

                        Cross-Defendants.

 Case No.:          21STCV45077

 Hearing Date:   1/24/24

 Trial Date:        7/9/24

 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Your Home Sold Guaranteed Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) of Stephanie Yun, and Request for Sanctions (CRS# 8695).

 

Background

Pleadings

Plaintiffs Suk Young Yun and Mying Ja Yun (the Yun Plaintiffs) sue Defendants Caroline Kyung Lee (Lee), Lee’s supervisor realtor, Freeman Wang, and Lee’s realty brokerage group, Your Home Sold Guaranteed Realty, Inc. (YHSG), allegedly owned by Lee and Wang, and Does 1-50 pursuant to an October 11, 2022 Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

The SAC alleges claims of (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (2) Fraud, (3) Negligence, (4) Conversion, (5) Trespass of Real Property, (6) Conversion, (7) Tort of Another, (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (9) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (10) Unfair Competition.

The claims arise from allegations that—while acting as realtor for the Yun Plaintiffs in the sale of 7416 Jason Avenue, West Hills, California (the Subject Property)—Lee, Wang, and YHSG Realty engaged in various actions amounting to breaches of fiduciary duty, conversion, trespass to real property, and other harms to the Yun Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct included allowing people to enter the Subject Property without a proper register of persons who gained admission, which permitted a theft of personal property one day before closing on escrow, including more than $100,000 in losses comprised of irreplaceable family jewels, cash, and personal possessions, the theft of which spurred an ongoing Los Angeles Police Department investigation.

In turn, Defendants Lee, Wang, and YHSG sue the Yun Plaintiffs’ daughter and counsel, Stephanie Yun, Esq., pursuant to an October 11, 2022 First Amended Cross-Complaint alleging claims of (1) Equitable Indemnity, (2) Equitable Contribution, and (3) Declaratory Relief.

The claims arise from allegations that Stephanie Yun was also responsible for the harm suffered by the Yun Plaintiffs given Stephanie Yun’s conduct as durable power of attorney for the Yun Plaintiffs during the sale of the Subject Property.

Stephanie Yun sues Defendant Lee and Does 1-50 pursuant to a July 26, 2022 Cross-Complaint alleging claims of (1) Invasion of Privacy, (2) Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Negligence.

The claims arise from allegations that, during Lee’s representation of the Yun Plaintiffs in the sale of the Subject Property, Lee wrongfully disclosed confidential information belonging to Stephanie Yun to the Yun Plaintiffs, i.e., Stephanie Yun’s parents.

Motion Before the Court

On April 18, 2023, Cross-Complainant YHSG served Form Interrogatories (Set One) (FROGs, Set One) on Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun.

On May 26, 2023, Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun served objections to FROGs, Set One, as signed by counsel.

On July 24, 2023, after receiving two meet and confer letters, Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun served supplemental responses to FROGs, Set One.

On August 3, 2023, Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun served verifications to FROGs, Set One.

Between September 7, 2023 and October 9, 2023, the parties met and conferred regarding supplemental responses.

On October 13, 2023, Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun provided supplemental responses to FROGs, Set One.

On October 20, 2023, Cross-Complainant YHSG filed a motion to compel further responses to its FROGs, Set One, No. 17.1 from Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun. The motion requests monetary sanctions from Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun and counsel.

On January 9, 2024, Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun opposed the motion to compel.

On January 16, 2024, Cross-Complainant YHSG replied to the opposition.

Cross-Complainant YHSG’s motions are now before the Court.

 

Preliminary Note

A trial court may construe a motion bearing one label as a different type of motion. (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 930.) “‘The nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it. The law is not a mere game of words. … The principle that a trial court may consider a motion regardless of the label placed on it by a party is consistent with the court’s inherent authority to manage and control its docket.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

The Court notes that this motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 rather than section 2030.290 because Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun served supplemental responses to FROGs, Set One, on October 13, 2023, for which reason, the proper section pursuant to which this motion was brought is section 2030.300. (Cf. Mot., p. 2 [Notice, showing motion as brought pursuant to “CCP § 2030.290 (a) and (b)”].)

 

Motion to Compel Further Interrogatory Responses

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further interrogatory responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Order Compelling Further Responses: DENIED.

YHSG’s motion is directed at compelling further responses to FROGs, Set One, No. 17.1 from Cross-Defendant Stephanie Yun. (See Mot., p. 2.) The responses at issue were served on October 13, 2023. (Mot., Hernandez Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. L, Proof of Service; cf. Mot., Separate Statement [seeking further responses as to responses dated October 13, 2023].) This motion was filed seven days later, on October 20, 2023. (Mot., p. 1.) Nowhere do the declarations of YHSG’s counsel explain whether there were meet and confer efforts between service of the challenged discovery responses and the filing of this motion seven days later. (Mot., Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 1-15 [last background fact provided by YHSG’s counsel is Stephanie Yun’s service of supplemental responses on October 13, 2023 but fails to mention subsequent meet and confer before filing of motion]; Reply, pp. 5-6 & Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 14-20 [same].)

YHSG’s motion is thus DENIED for failure to sufficiently meet and confer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); See Opp’n, p. 2 [making this argument].)

Sanctions: DENIED.

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).)

Because YHSG’s motion was denied, sanctions are also DENIED. 

Conclusion

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Your Home Sold Guaranteed Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) of Stephanie Yun, and Request for Sanctions (CRS# 8695) is DENIED.