Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV20520, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20520    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiff Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. sues Defendants Healing Hands Care, Inc., a California Corporation, Ara Tovmassian aka Ara Mesrop Tovmassian, and Does 1 through 50 pursuant to an August 28, 2023, Complaint alleging ten breach of contract claims.

B. Motion Before the Court

On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories – General, Set No. One (FROGs, Set One), on Defendant Tovmassian. Responses to FROGS, Set One, were due on February 6, 2024, 35 days after service by mail on January 2, 2024.

Defendant Tovmassian failed to serve responses to FROGs, Set One, by February 6, 2024.

On March 22, 2024, based on Defendant Tovmassian’s non-response to FROGs, Set One, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel initial responses to FROGs, Set One, from Defendant Tovmassian. Plaintiff’s motion also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $850 against Defendant Tovmassian. Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant Tovmassian by mail that same day.

Defendant Tovmassian has failed to oppose Plaintiff’s motion despite service.

Plaintiff’s motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

A. Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Interrogatories

1. Legal Standard

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).) To establish this ground, a movant must show:

(1) Proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.080, subd. (a));

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subds. (a), (b)); and

(3) No timely response (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290).

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (See CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 (CBS); see also Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

2. Court’s Determination

Plaintiff shows evidence of service of FROGs, Set One, on Defendant Tovmassian. (Mot., Minassian Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. 1-2.)

Plaintiff shows evidence that the expiration to respond to FROGs, Set One, has passed. (Mot., Minassian Decl., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff shows evidence that Defendant Tovmassian has failed to file responses to FROGs, Set One. (Mot., Minassian Decl., ¶ 4.)

A review of FROGs, Set One, shows that they request information within the proper scope of discovery for this action, particularly where the FROGs at issue involve prepopulated questions set out in a Judicial Council form.

Plaintiff’s motion is thus GRANTED as to compelling initial responses to FROGs, Set One, from Defendant Tovmassian.

B. Request for Sanctions

1. Legal Standard

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); see Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

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).)

2. Court’s Determination

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions.

Despite not opposing this motion, Defendant Tovmassian has failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery in FROGs, Set One, thus justifying sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The Court also finds that the sanctions of $850 are eminently reasonable as comprised of a reasonable fee rate of $395 per hour, two hours reasonably expended on this motion, and a $60 motion filing fee. (Mot., Minassian Decl., ¶ 5.)

Sanctions are thus GRANTED in the amount of $850.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories Against Ara Tovmassian, and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Ara Tovmassian in the Amount of $850.00 is GRANTED.

Defendant Ara Tovmassian is (1) ORDERED to provide responses, without objections (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)), to Form Interrogatories – General, Set No. One, within 14 days of this ruling, and (2) ORDERED to remit sanctions of $850 within 14 days of this ruling.