Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 21GDCV00807, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV00807 Hearing Date: August 16, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 08/16/2024 – 8:30am
Case No: 21GDCV00807
Trial Date: 11/18/2024
Case Name: CASTRELLON HOLDINGS, LLC; JOSE CASTRELLON; and GUADALUPE CASTRELLON
v. VALENZUELA PROPERTIES, LLC; a California Limited Liability Company; RICHARD VALENZUELA;
and DOES 1-10 inclusive
TENTATIVE
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs,
Castrellon Holdings LLC, Jose Castrellon, and Guadalupe Castrellon filed a
Complaint on 6/9/2021 against Defendants, Valenzuela Properties LLC, and
Richard Valenzuela, for: (1) Accounting, (2) Unjust Enrichment and for a
Constructive Trust, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Constructive Fraud, (5)
Elder Abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30), (6) Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress, and (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
On 12/1/2021, Defendants
Valenzuela Properties LLC and Richard Valenzuela filed a Cross-Complaint for:
(1) Fraud in the Inducement of Contract, (2) Breach of Contract, (3)
Cancellation of Instruments, (4) Restitution, (5) Unfair Competition in
Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and (6) Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
RELIEF REQUESTED
“Plaintiff
Guadalupe Castrellon (“Plaintiff”) will move this Court for an order as
follows:
1. For an order compelling Defendant Valenzuela
Properties, LLC to provide further responses to the request for production of
documents (set one) propounded on it on April 30, 2024. Said responses are to
contain no objections and that the documents requested be provided. Further,
that said responses shall comply with Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §2031.210,
§2031.220 or §2031.230, §2031.240, §2031.250 and §2031.280.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Plaintiff will also
move and seek an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $4260.00 as
against Defendant Valenzuela Properties, LLC and its attorney of record, Dan S.
Shapiro, for the cost of having to prepare, file, serve this motion, prepare a
separate statement, reviewing any opposition paper, preparing a Reply, as well
as Plaintiff’s counsel’s need to appear at a hearing in this matter and for
court costs.
This motion will be made on the grounds that the
Defendant Valenzuela Properties upon its counsel’s advice has engaged in abuse
of the discovery process by insisting without valid grounds on objecting to the
requests for production of documents (set one), failing provide complete and
straightforward responses and failing to provide responses that comply with
Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §2031.210, §2031.220 or §2031.230, §2031.240,
§2031.250 and §2031.280.
Said motion is further based on this notice, the
attached points and authorities, the declaration of Reyes Valenzuela, the
attached exhibits, the concurrently filed separate statement, the Court’s
records and files and on such other oral or documentary evidence as may be
presented at the hearing.”
(Pl. Mot. p. 1-2.)
Procedural
Moving Party: Plaintiff, Guadalupe Castrellon
Responding Party: Defendant, Valenzuela Properties, LLC
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP § 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Decl. Reyes Valenzuela; Separate
Statement
Opposition Papers: Opposition
Reply Papers: No Reply
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION
CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document
inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if
the demanding party deems that:
(1) A
statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
(2) A
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3)
An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS
45-Day Requirement
Unless
notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified
response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific
later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in
writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to
the demand. (CCP §2031.310(c).)
Here, Plaintiff’s motion appears timely, and Defendant
did not object that this motion was untimely with respect to 2031.310(c).
Meet and Confer
“The
motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)
Defendant filed a two page opposition, and the only
grounds on which Defendant opposed this motion is that Plaintiff failed to meet
and confer.
Defendant’s argument is unavailing.
Defendant served responses to the instant discovery
request on May 30, 2024. On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an
extension to file a motion to compel because the due date was approaching. The
next day, Defendant’s counsel denied the request for an extension to file the
instant motion. Further, on July 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and
confer letter explaining why further responses were needed. On July 15, 2024,
Plaintiff filed the instant motion.
Defendant tries to argue that a meet and confer did
not occur because Plaintiff sat on this matter for 42 days then demanded an
immediate response. Defendant’s counsel argues that a response to Plaintiff’s
extensive, 13-page single-spaced meet and confer was impossible over a two-day
weekend.
The Court finds Defendant’s argument unavailing for
two reasons. One, Defendant points to no legal authority that a meet and confer
has to be served a specific number of days before the 45-day deadline to file
the motion to compel further. Second, and most importantly, Plaintiff requested
an extension to file the motion to compel further, but Defendant was the one
who denied Plaintiff’s request. Granting an extension to file the motion would
have allowed the parties further time to meet and confer.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s
opposition states that the discovery cut-off was August 18, 2023. Defendant’s
counsel needs to explain why it is stating the discovery cut-off was August 18,
2023 when Plaintiff’s counsel is stating that pursuant to a stipulation the
discovery cut-off is October 18, 2024.
Defendant’s Opposition does not address the merits of
any of the arguments asserted by Plaintiff. In fact, Defendant submitted a two-page
opposition that argues only that Plaintiff did not properly meet and confer.
Defendant’s argument on Plaintiff failing to meet and confer is unavailing.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFPs
1-44 and 46-98, Set One, propounded on Defendant
Valenzuela LLC is GRANTED.
Sanctions
Except
as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall 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 further
response to a demand, 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. (CCP §2031.310(h).)
“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(a).)
Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $4,260.0
against Defendant Valenzuela Properties, LLC and its attorney of record, Dan S.
Shapiro.
Plaintiff’s counsel requests sanctions as follows:
(a) I have spent 6 hours in preparing for
this motion and the separate statement.
(b) I will be spending 3.0 hours reviewing
the opposition and preparing a Reply.
(c) I expect to spend 1.5 hours in
appearing at a hearing on this motion.
(d) The cost of filing this motion is
$60.00.
(e) My regular and customary hourly fee
for legal services is $400.00 per hour.
(Reyes Decl. ¶ 21.)
The Court will hear argument. The Court notes that no
Reply was submitted.