Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV45077, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV45077 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: 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). |
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.
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)”].)
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 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.
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.