Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV21941, Date: 2023-06-22 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: 22STCV21941    Hearing Date: October 6, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

Plaintiff Farzan Alamirad (Dr. Alamirad) and Farzan Alamirad, D.D.S., Inc. (Alamirad Dentistry) (collectively, the Alamirad Plaintiffs) sue Defendants Marjan Ravanbakhsh (an accountant; hereafter CPA Ravanbakhsh), Premier CPA Consultants, Inc. (the accounting firm under which Ravanbakhsh worked at all relevant times; hereafter, Premier CPA), and Does 1 to 20 pursuant to a December 7, 2022 First Amended Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Professional Negligence (Accountant), and (4) Unfair Business Practices.

The claims arise from allegations that, among other things, after the Alamirad Plaintiffs hired Defendants in 2020 to perform accounting services for Alamirad Dentistry, Defendants used their position of confidence and access to Plaintiffs’ financial information to file fraudulent PPP and EIDL loans and erroneous tax returns on behalf of Plaintiffs, otherwise failed to make quarterly payments to the IRS, EDD, and FTB, and released Dr. Alamirad’s confidential financial information to his estranged wife, from whom Dr. Alamirad was divorcing, and with whom Defendant Ravanbakhsh maintained and continues to maintain a close friendship.

Defendant Ravanbakhsh previously sued Mr. Alamirad in LASC Action No. 21STCV11318 (the Underlying Action) based on facts similar to those advanced in this lawsuit. Mr. Alamirad did not serve a cross-complaint in the Underlying Action prior to that action being dismissed with prejudice by Ravanbakhsh on March 15, 2022.

Motion Before Court

On or around August 22, 2022, Defendant Ravanbakhsh served Request for Admissions, Set One (RFAs, Set One), and Form Interrogatories – General, Set One (FROGs, Set One), on Dr. Alamirad.

On October 24, 2022, Dr. Alamirad served responses to this discovery.

Counsel for the parties thereafter met and conferred regarding the sufficiency of Dr. Alamirad’s October 24, 2022 responses.

On December 19, 2022, Defendant Ravanbakhsh moved to compel further responses to RFAs, Set One, Nos. 3-10, and FROGs, Set One, No. 17.1. The motions are accompanied by facially valid proofs of service.

Dr. Alamirad has failed to oppose Defendant Ravanbakhsh’s motion, which is now before the Court.

Motion to Compel Further Responses, Admissions

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 obtain further responses to requests for admission, the movant must establish that (1) the response to an RFA is evasive or incomplete (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1)) or (2) the objection to an RFA is without merit or too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(2)).

Order Compelling Further Admissions: DENIED.

After review, the Court finds no merit to compelling further responses to RFAs, Set One, Nos. 3-10.

Dr. Alamirad’s responses to RFAs, Set One, Nos. 3-10 are comprised of various objections—compound question, vagueness, ambiguity, unintelligibility, and/or calls for legal conclusion—followed by a “Deny,” with the denial made subject to the stated objections. (See RFAs Mot., Frank Decl., Ex. C.) None of the stated objections allow for the ready conclusion that Dr. Alamirad withheld responsive information based on a privilege or right, e.g., attorney-client or work product privilege and right to privacy. The objections merely relate to the form and language used in the RFAs. Dr. Alamirad therefore does not appear to hold anything back from his responses to RFAs, Set One, Nos. 3-10.

Defendant Ravanbakhsh seeks to compel further responses with no objections to RFAs, Set One, Nos. 3-10, arguing that the objections lack merit. (RFAs Mot., pp. 4-5; RFAs Mot., Separate Statement, pp. 2-12 [“Th[ese] [responses] should be amended by minimally withdrawing the meritless and improper objections”].)

The Court disagrees.

A party’s responses are “unquestionably code compliant” when they consist of one-word “Admit” or “Deny” responses. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 780.) The fact that a party may add an explanation or qualification does not make an admission or denial equivocal and thus insufficient. (See id. at pp. 780-781 [examples].)

Here, Dr. Alamirad’s verified responses to Request Nos. 3-10 were comprised of a one-word “Deny” that were qualified by objections that do not affect the Court’s conclusion that the responses were sufficiently responsive. (RFAs Mot., Frank Decl., Ex. C.) Moreover, the Court finds no good reason to strike the objections stated by Dr. Alamirad to these admission requests. Those objections are Dr. Alamirad’s counsel’s interpretation of the quality of the posed admission requests, and the Court did not see a meritorious argument for compelling further responses that do not contain the stated objections.

Defendant Ravanbakhsh’s motion to compel further responses to RFAs, Set One, Nos. 3-10, is therefore DENIED.

Sanctions: DENIED.

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, 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 DENIES the request for monetary sanctions based on the outcome of the motion.

Motion to Compel Further Responses, 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.

After review, the Court finds merit to compelling further responses to FROGS, Set One, No. 17.1.

The eight verified responses sufficiently respond to subsections (a), (c), and (d) of FROGs, Set One, No. 17.1, i.e., identify the RFA at issue, the names, addresses, and telephone numbers for all persons who have knowledge of the facts raised in subsection (b), and all documents and other tangible things that support the responses, as well as the names, addresses, and telephone numbers for all persons who have possession of those documents. (FROGs Mot., Frank Decl., Ex. C.)

However, the eight verified responses do not sufficiently respond to subsection (b) of FROGs, Set One, No. 17.1. For example, all responses to subsection (b) contain conclusions of fact relating to how this action and the Underlying action involve different causes of action (and defenses). Some of the responses—FROGS, Set One, No. 17.1 as it relates to RFAs, Set One, Nos. 5-8—do not sufficiently explain the facts upon which Dr. Alamirad denies that Defendants in this action are in privity with one another in this action and the Underlying Action and that the Alamirad Plaintiffs are in privity with one another in this action and the Underlying Action. Other responses—FROGS, Set One, No. 17.1 as it relates to RFAs, Set One, No. 9—do not sufficiently differentiate between the facts of this case and those in the underlying action. Further responses to FROGS, Set One, No. 17.1 are necessary to fully round out Dr. Alamirad’s denials to RFAs, Set One, Nos. 3-10.

Defendant Ravanbakhsh’s motion to compel further responses to FROGS, Set One, No. 17.1 is GRANTED.

Sanctions: GRANTED.

The Court must impose monetary sanctions 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 person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions 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 GRANTS monetary sanctions against Dr. Alamirad, as well as against Dr. Alamirad’s counsel—Law Offices of Morteza Aghavali—based on their failure to supplement responses to valid discovery requests. Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $1,060, comprised of two hours expended on drafting this motion at a reasonable rate of $500 per hour and $60 expended in filing this motion. (Mot., Frank Decl., ¶¶ 1-7.)

Conclusion

I.

Defendant Marjan Ravanbakhsh’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Admissions by Plaintiff is DENIED.

The corresponding Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

II.

Defendant Marjan Ravanbakhsh’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Form Interrogatories by Plaintiff is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Farzan Alamirad is ORDERED to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, No. 17.1, re: Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 3-10, within 10 days of this ruling.

The corresponding Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Farzan Alamirad and counsel—Law Offices of Morteza Aghavali—are jointly and severally ORDERED to remit sanctions of $1,060 to Defendant Marjan Ravanbakhsh within 30 days of this ruling.