Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 22STCV28598, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV28598 Hearing Date: April 26, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 04/25/2024 – 1:30pm Case No. 22STCV28598 Trial Date: 07/30/2024 Case Name:
Complaint: ADELINA ARUTUNIAN and HRATCH MANOUKIAN, individuals v. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, an entity; TERRACE VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an entity; MARB CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, an entity; M.L. PLUMBING, an entity; MICHAEL LEVENDOSKY, an individual; and DOES 1-50 inclusive
Cross-Complaint: TERRACE VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION and RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. MARB CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, an entity; ML PLUMBING, an entity; MICHAEL LEVENDOSKY, an individual; and ROES 1-50 inclusive
TENTATIVE RULING – COMPEL RESPONSES
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants on 9/1/2022 alleging three causes of action for: (1) General Negligence; (2) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee; and (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
On 11/17/2022, a Cross-Complaint was filed by Terrace View Homeowners Association and Resource Management Company alleging four cause of action for: (1) Equitable Indemnity; (2) Equitable Indemnity and Contribution; (3) Apportionment of Fault; and (4) Declaratory Relief.
PRELIMINARY MATTER On 12/29/2023, Defendant Resource Management Company filed a motion to compel responses from Plaintiff (Adelina Arutunian) to Special Interrogatories, Set One. This hearing was set for April 25, 2024. On 3/22/2024, Defendant Resource Management filed an amended motion to compel responses from Plaintiff (Adelina Arutunian) to Special Interrogatories, Set One with a hearing date of April 25, 2024. The amended motion does not explain why an amended motion was filed. However, since it does not appear as if the original motion was ever ruled on, and since the amended motion appears timely filed and served, the Court will assume that the instant hearing pertains to the Amended Motion filed on 3/22/2024 and not the original motion filed on 12/29/2023.
RELIEF REQUESTED¿ ?Defendant, Resource Management Company, moves for an order compelling Plaintiff, Adelina Arutunian, to provide written responses without objection to the Association’s First Set of Special Interrogatories.
This motion is filed pursuant to C.C.P. Section 2030.290 on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to submit any written responses and the time for doing so has now expired.”
[Confusingly, this motion indicates that moving Defendant is Resource Management Company; however, this motion then seeks written responses to the Association’s First Set of Special Interrogatories. At the hearing, Movant needs to indicate who is the moving party and who is
seeking responses. To the Court’s understanding, the reference to the “Association” is to Terrace View Homeowners Association; however, the Court does not see how the Association is involved with this motion. In fact, Exhibit A attached to this motion indicates the propounding party to be Resource Management Company and the responding party to be Adelina Arutunian.]
Procedural
Moving Party: Defendant, Resource Management Company
Responding Party: No Opposition by Plaintiff Adelina Arutunian
Moving Papers: Amended Notice of Motion/Memo/Wolfsen Declaration
Opposition Papers: No Opposition
Reply: No Reply
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b): Ok Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok Correct Address (CCP §1013, § 1013a): Ok
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INTERROGATORIES Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (CCP 2030.260(a).)
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).)
“The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP §2030.290(a).)
Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 citing Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to 8:1489, pp. 8H-29 to hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)
TENTATIVE RULING Confusingly, this motion indicates that moving Defendant is Resource Management Company; however, this motion then seeks written responses to the Association’s First Set of Special Interrogatories. At the hearing, Movant needs to indicate who is the moving party and who is seeking responses. To the Court’s understanding, the reference to the “Association” is to Terrace View Homeowners Association; however, the Court does not see how the Association is involved with this motion. In fact, Exhibit A attached to this motion indicates the propounding party to be Resource Management Company and the responding party to be Adelina Arutunian.
On October 23, 2023, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff Adelina Arutunian. On November 22, 2023, it appears as if Plaintiff’s counsel requested a 30-day extension to respond. Defendant’s counsel did not grant the 30-day extension but granted an extension to respond to December 13, 2023. However, no responses had been received by Defendant’s counsel as of the date of Defendant’s counsel’s declaration on December 29, 2023.
If Defendant clears up the issue that the Court previously noted with respect to indicating who is seeking responses, the Court tentatively plans to GRANT Defendant, Resource Management Company’s, motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, because Plaintiff did not timely respond. If granted, Plaintiff is ordered to provide code compliant responses, without objections within 20 days.
Sanctions – Interrogatories CCP § 2030.290 states in relevant part:
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 a 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.
(CCP § 2030.290(c).)
“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).)
The Court will hear argument as to sanctions. There is potentially a problem with Defendant’s sanctions request. While the caption on the notice of motion indicates monetary sanctions are being sought, the body of the notice of motion does not indicate that Defendant is seeking sanctions. Consequently, the body of the notice of motion does not indicate how much the Defendant is seeking in sanctions. The body of the notice of motion simply indicates that Defendant is seeking responses without objections. Additionally, the Court notes that even though the caption on the notice of motion mentions monetary sanctions, the caption does not indicate how much in monetary sanctions are being sought.
Further, Defendant states:
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.330(d), this Court is mandated to impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a Motion to Compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances made the imposition of the sanction unjust.
(Def. Mot. p. 4.)
This argument makes little sense to the Court. First, this motion does not pertain to compelling a further response; this motion pertains to compelling an initial response. Second, based on the Court’s research, it does not appear as if there is a § 2030.330(d) in the CCP.
It appears as if Defendant should have cited to § 2030.290(c), as cited above.
Defendant also cites to §§ 2023.030(a) and 2023.010(d)-(f). Defendant argues for sanctions in the amount of $999.15 for Plaintiff failing to respond to the discovery requests.
Defendant’s counsel, Wolfsen, asks for $999.15 in sanctions based on: (1) A billing rate of $375/hour; (2) 1 hour of attorney time in research and preparation of this motion; (3) An anticipated 0.5 hours to review and respond to any opposition; (4) 1 hour attending the hearing; and (5) $61.65 for the filing fee of the motion
Hearing Date: 04/26/2024 – 1:30pm
Case No. 22STCV28598
Trial Date: 07/30/2024
Case Name:
Complaint: ADELINA
ARUTUNIAN and HRATCH MANOUKIAN, individuals v. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, an
entity; TERRACE VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an entity; MARB CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT, an entity; M.L. PLUMBING, an entity; MICHAEL LEVENDOSKY, an
individual; and DOES 1-50 inclusive
Cross-Complaint:
TERRACE VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION and RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. MARB
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, an entity; ML PLUMBING, an entity; MICHAEL LEVENDOSKY,
an individual; and ROES 1-50 inclusive
2
TENTATIVE RULING – COMPEL RESPONSES
BACKGROUND BOTH MOTIONS
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants on 9/1/2022 alleging
three causes of action for: (1) General Negligence; (2) Negligent Hiring,
Supervision, or Retention of Employee; and (3) Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress.
On 11/17/2022, a Cross-Complaint was filed by Terrace View
Homeowners Association and Resource Management Company alleging four cause of
action for: (1) Equitable Indemnity; (2) Equitable Indemnity and Contribution;
(3) Apportionment of Fault; and (4) Declaratory Relief.
MOTION 1
PRELIMINARY MATTER
On 12/29/2023, Defendant Resource Management Company filed a motion to
compel responses from Plaintiff (Hratch Manoukian) to Special Interrogatories,
Set One. This hearing was set for April 26, 2024. On 3/22/2024, Defendant
Resource Management filed an amended motion to compel responses from Plaintiff
(Hratch Manoukian) to Special Interrogatories, Set One with a hearing date of
April 26, 2024. The amended motion does not explain why an amended motion was
filed. However, since it does not appear as if the original motion was ever
ruled on, and since the amended motion appears timely filed and served, the
Court will assume that the instant hearing pertains to the Amended Motion filed
on 3/22/2024 and not the original motion filed on 12/29/2023.
RELIEF REQUESTED¿
“Defendant, Resource Management Company, moves for an order compelling
Plaintiff, Hratch Manoukian, to provide written responses without objection to
the Association’s First Set of Special Interrogatories.
This motion is filed pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 2030.290 on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to submit any written
responses and the time for doing so has now expired.
[Confusingly, this motion indicates
that moving Defendant is Resource Management Company; however, this motion then
seeks written responses to the Association’s First Set of Special
Interrogatories. At the hearing, Movant needs to indicate who is the moving
party and who is seeking responses. To the Court’s understanding, the reference
to the “Association” is to Terrace View Homeowners Association; however, the
Court does not see how the Association is involved with this motion. In fact,
Exhibit A attached to this motion indicates the propounding party to be
Resource Management Company and the responding party to be Hratch Manoukian.]
Procedural
Moving Party: Defendant, Resource Management Company
Responding Party: No Opposition by Plaintiff Hratch
Manoukian
Moving Papers: Amended Notice of Motion/Memo/Wolfsen
Declaration
Opposition Papers: No Opposition by Plaintiff Hratch
Manoukian
Reply: No Reply
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP §12c and §1005(b): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a): Ok
If
a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,
the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling
response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).)
“The
party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the
option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to
the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for
work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on
motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both
of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently
served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210,
2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely
response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP
§2030.290(a).)
Unlike
a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not
subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to
demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer”
requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 citing Weil and
Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group
2006) ¶¶8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to 8:1489, pp. 8H-29 to
hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)
On
October 23, 2023, Defendant served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on
Plaintiff Hratch Manoukian. On November 22, 2023, it appears as if Plaintiff’s
counsel requested a 30-day extension to respond. Defendant’s counsel did not
grant the 30-day extension but granted an extension to respond to December 13,
2023. However, no responses had been received by Defendant’s counsel as of the
date of Defendant’s counsel’s declaration on December 29, 2023.
If
Defendant clears up the issue that the Court previously noted with respect to
indicating who is seeking responses, the Court tentatively plans to GRANT
Defendant, Resource Management Company’s, motion to compel responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set One, because Plaintiff did not timely respond. If granted,
Plaintiff, Hratch Manoukian, is ordered to provide code compliant responses,
without objections within 20 days.
Sanctions – Interrogatories
CCP
§ 2030.290 states in relevant part:
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 a 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.
(CCP
§2030.290(c).)
“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).)
The Court will
hear argument as to sanctions. There is potentially a problem with Defendant’s
sanctions request. While the caption on the notice of motion indicates monetary
sanctions are being sought, the body of the notice of motion does not indicate
that Defendant is seeking sanctions. Consequently, the body of the notice of
motion does not indicate how much the Defendant is seeking in sanctions. The
body of the notice of motion simply indicates that Defendant is seeking
responses without objections. Additionally, the Court notes that even though the
caption on the notice of motion mentions monetary sanctions, the caption does
not indicate how much in monetary sanctions are being sought.
Further, Defendant
states:
Pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 2030.330(d), this Court is mandated to impose a
monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a Motion to Compel further response, unless it finds that the
one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances made the imposition of the sanction unjust.
(Def. Mot. p. 4.)
This argument does
not make sense to the Court. First, this motion does not pertain to compelling
a further response; this motion pertains to compelling an initial response.
Second, based on the Court’s research, it does not appear as if there is a § 2030.330(d)
in the CCP.
It appears as if
Defendant should have cited to § 2030.290(c), as cited above.
Defendant also
cites to §§ 2023.030(a) and 2023.010(d)-(f). Defendant argues for sanctions in
the amount of $999.15 for Plaintiff failing to respond to the discovery
requests.
Defendant’s
counsel, Wolfsen, asks for $999.15 in sanctions based on: (1) A billing rate of
$375/hour; (2) 1 hour of attorney time in research and preparation of this
motion; (3) An anticipated 0.5 hours to review and respond to any opposition;
(4) 1 hour attending the hearing; and (5) $61.65 for the filing fee of the
motion.
The Court will
hear argument as to sanctions.
MOTION 2
PRELIMINARY MATTER
On 12/29/2023, Defendant Terrace View Homeowners Association filed a
motion to compel responses from Plaintiff (Adelina Arutunian) to Special
Interrogatories, Set One. This hearing was set for April 26, 2024. On
3/22/2024, Defendant Terrace View Homeowners Association filed an amended
motion to compel responses from Plaintiff (Adelina Arutunian) to Special
Interrogatories, Set One with a hearing date of April 26, 2024. The amended
motion does not explain why an amended motion was filed. However, since it does
not appear as if the original motion was ever ruled on, and since the amended
motion appears timely filed and served, the Court will assume that the instant
hearing pertains to the Amended Motion filed on 3/22/2024 and not the original
motion filed on 12/29/2023.
RELIEF REQUESTED¿
Defendant, Terrace View Homeowners Association (Association), moves for an
order compelling Plaintiff, Adelina Arutunian, to provide written responses
without objection to the Association’s First Set of Special Interrogatories.
This motion is filed pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 2030.290 on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to submit any
written responses and the time for doing so has now expired.
Procedural
Moving Party: Defendant, Terrace View Homeowners
Association (Defendant or Association)
Responding Party: No Opposition by Plaintiff Adelina
Arutunian
Moving Papers: Amended Notice of Motion/Memo/Wolfsen
Declaration
Opposition Papers: No Opposition by Plaintiff Adelina
Arutunian
Reply: No Reply
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP §12c and §1005(b): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a): Ok
LEGAL STANDARD –
COMPEL RESPONSES, INTERROGATORIES
Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the
interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them
on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court
has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding
party the court has extended the time for response. (CCP 2030.260(a).)
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails
to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move
for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP §2030.290(b).)
“The party to whom the interrogatories are directed
waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section
2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based
on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing
with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this
waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are
satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial
compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The
party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP §2030.290(a).)
Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion
to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding
party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a
“meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404
citing Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The
Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to 8:1489,
pp. 8H-29 to hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)
TENTATIVE
RULING
On October 23, 2023, Defendant
served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff Adelina Arutunian. On
November 22, 2023, it appears as if Plaintiff’s counsel requested a 30-day
extension to respond. Defendant’s counsel did not grant the 30-day extension
but granted an extension to respond to December 13, 2023. However, no responses
had been received by Defendant’s counsel as of the date of Defendant’s
counsel’s declaration on December 29, 2023.
The Court tentatively plans to GRANT
Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One,
because Plaintiff did not timely respond. Plaintiff, Adelina Arutunian, is
ordered to provide code compliant responses, without objections, within 20
days.
Sanctions – Interrogatories
CCP
§2030.290 states in relevant part:
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 a 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.
(CCP
§2030.290(c).)
“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).)
The Court will
hear argument as to sanctions. There is potentially a problem with Defendant’s
sanctions request. While the caption on the notice of motion indicates monetary
sanctions are being sought, the body of the notice of motion does not indicate
that Defendant is seeking sanctions. Consequently, the body of the notice of
motion does not indicate how much the Defendant is seeking in sanctions. The
body of the notice of motion simply indicates that Defendant is seeking
responses without objections. Additionally, the Court notes that even though the
caption on the notice of motion mentions monetary sanctions, the caption does
not indicate how much in monetary sanctions are being sought.
Further, Defendant
states:
Pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 2030.330(d), this Court is mandated to impose a
monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully
makes or opposes a Motion to Compel further response, unless it finds that the
one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances made the imposition of the sanction unjust.
(Def. Mot. p. 4.)
Again, the
argument is confusing. First, this motion does not pertain to compelling a
further response; this motion pertains to compelling an initial response.
Second, based on the Court’s research, it does not appear as if there is a § 2030.330(d)
in the CCP.
It appears as if
Defendant should have cited to § 2030.290(c), as cited above.
Defendant also
cites to §§ 2023.030(a) and 2023.010(d)-(f). Defendant argues for sanctions in
the amount of $999.15 for Plaintiff failing to respond to the discovery
requests.
Defendant’s
counsel, Wolfsen, asks for $999.15 in sanctions based on: (1) A billing rate of
$375/hour; (2) 1 hour of attorney time in research and preparation of this
motion; (3) An anticipated 0.5 hours to review and respond to any opposition;
(4) 1 hour attending the hearing; and (5) $61.65 for the filing fee of the
motion.
The Court will
hear argument as to sanctions.