Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV01297, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV01297 Hearing Date: March 15, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 03/15/2024 – 8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV01297
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name:
Complaint:
HAIRUN INVESTMENT, INC., a California corporation; and YUKE HOU, an individual
v. YI WANG; LEI ZHANG; HEDI WANG, and DOES 1-50
Cross-Complaint: YI
WANG, an individual; v. HAIRUN INVESTMENT, Inc., a California Corporation; YUKE
HOU, an individual; and DOES 1-50
TENTATIVE
RULING – COMPEL RESPONSES
RELIEF REQUESTED¿
Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Yi Wang (Movant), moves the Court for an order
compelling Hairun Investment, Inc. to serve full and complete verified
responses, without objections, to Judicial Counsel Interrogatories served on
Plaintiff on November 13, 2023.
“Notice is further given that Wang
will request that the Court award monetary sanctions against Hairun and in
favor of Wang in the sum of $1,285.00 pursuant to CCP § 2023.010 et seq.,
2030.300.
This motion is made pursuant to
C.C.P. § 2030.290; 2030.300 on the grounds that the responding party has failed
to timely serve responses to these interrogatories.
This motion is further based upon
this notice; the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Declaration
of Bruce A. Fields and Exhibits, filed herewith; upon the records and files in
this action; and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presented
prior to or at the time of hearing on the motion.”
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Hairun Investment, Inc. and Yuke Hou filed a
Complaint against Yi Wang, Lei Zhang, and Hedi Wang on 06/21/2023.
On 7/11/2023,
Plaintiffs Hairun Investment, Inc. and Yuke Hou filed an ex parte application
for a temporary restraining order. On 7/13/2023, the ex parte application was
granted in part.
On 8/2/2023, the
Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the temporary
restraining order issued on 7/13/2023 was dissolved.
Yi Wang filed an
Answer to the Complaint on 08/14/2023. Further, on 08/14/2023, Yi Wang filed a
Cross-Complaint against Hairun Investment, Inc. and Yuke Hou.
On 2/2/2024,
Cross-Defendants’ (Hairun Investment, Inc. and Yuke Hou) motion to set
aside/vacate default of the Cross-Complaint was granted.
In the 2/28/2024
Minute Order, the Court noted that “Stephan Thomas was relieved as counsel of
record and will no longer represent Hairun Investment or Yuke Hou.” (Min. Order
2/28/2024, p.1)
PROCEDURAL
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Yi Wang
(Movant)
Responding Party: No Opposition submitted
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order; Proof of
Service
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): Yes/No – At the time Movant served this
motion to Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs were still represented by Stephen
Thomas. [It appears as if Plaintiffs are no longer represented by Stephen
Thomas.] This motion appears to have been served both by USPS Priority Mail and
electronic mail. As to electronic mail, it does not appear as if this motion
was served to the proper email address because eCourt lists Thomas’s email
address as BWu@corporatefirm.com; however, the proof of service indicates that
the motion was served to sjt@corporatefirm.com. This motion was also allegedly served
via USPS Priority Mail. The mailing address on the proof of service appears to
match the mailing address listed for Thomas on eCourt. Movant can address this
service issue at the hearing.
[The Court notes that Movant’s Proof of Service does not
include the Proposed Order; therefore, it appears as if the Proposed Order was
not served to Plaintiffs.]
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).)
The
reason the Court points this out is because several times throughout the
motion, the Movant refers to “the discovery,” in general terms. It appears as
if Movant’s reference to “the discovery,” is referring to all of the discovery
served on November 13, 2023 and not just the discovery pertaining to the
instant motion – Judicial Counsel Interrogatories, Set One.
Further,
the Judicial Counsel Interrogatories at issue in this motion were referenced in
the Fields Declaration at ¶2 and attached to the motion at Exhibit A. The
attached Exhibit A is titled “Form Interrogatories – General,” and the “Asking
Party” is listed as Yi Wang, and the “Answering Party” is listed as Yuke Hou.
For the sake of clarity, the Court notes that this ruling only pertains to
compelling responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One propounded on
Yuke Hou by Yi Wang (also referred to by Movant as Judicial Counsel
Interrogatories). This ruling does not pertain to requests for admissions nor
does it pertain to the requests for production served on Plaintiff on November
13, 2023.
On
November 13, 2023, Movant/Defendant, Yi Wang, propounded Form Interrogatories,
General, Set One, on Plaintiff Yuke Hou. (See Fields Decl. ¶2 & Ex. A.) On
December 19, 2023, Movant emailed Plaintiff to inform them that responses had
not been received and that objections had been waived. Defendant granted Plaintiff
an extension to respond until January 5, 2024. On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff
emailed Defendant requesting another extension to respond, and Plaintiff
acknowledged that objections were waived. On January 8, 2024, Defendant agreed
to Plaintiff’s request and allowed Plaintiff to submit responses on January 17,
2024 without objections. As of the date of Bruce Fields’ declaration on
2/12/2024, Defendant had not received responses.
Here,
Plaintiff Yuke Hou has not provided timely responses in accordance with CCP § 2030.260(a),
and typically the Court would be inclined to grant Defendant Yi Wang’s motion
to compel responses without objection to Form Interrogatories, General, Set One
propounded on Plaintiff Yuke Hou.
However,
there is potentially a notice problem with this motion. Movant’s caption on the
notice page of this motion on page 1 indicates that this motion pertains to
compelling responses from “Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Hairun Investment,
Inc.”
Further,
on page 2 of this motion, the Movant specifically states it is moving for an
order Compelling Hairun Investment, Inc. to serve responses; this page also requests
sanctions against Hairun.
However,
the declaration attached to this motion simply refers to “Plaintiff” throughout
the declaration despite the fact that there are two Plaintiffs.
Of
particular importance, at ¶2 in the Fields declaration, Fields references the
discovery served on Plaintiff and attaches that discovery at Exhibit A. Exhibit
A, the discovery at issue, is directed at Plaintiff Yuke Hou, which is not the
Plaintiff that Defendant refers to in the caption on the first page of the
notice, nor is it the Plaintiff indicated on the second page of the notice of
the motion.
The
Court will hear argument as to the potential notice problems that this motion faces,
and it will hear argument about service since there is no Opposition.
Sanctions
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).)
Movant requests that the Court award monetary
sanctions against Hairun and in favor of Wang in the sum of $1,285.00.
The Court previously noted the notice issues that this
motion faces. The sanctions portion of this motion faces the same notice issues
since the notice/caption requests sanctions against Plaintiff Hairun, but the
motion/attached discovery appears to pertain to Plaintiff Yuke Hou.
Further, it appears that there could be an issue with Fields’
declaration requesting sanctions. In ¶5 of Fields declaration, Fields states, “I
have been practicing law since 1981. Fei Pang’s office bills at the rate of
$350.00 per hour. (2.5) hours were dedicated to review, research and in
preparation of this Motion and (1) hour is anticipated to appear in Court.
$60.00 is the cost of filing this motion. Hence attorney’s fees and costs total
$1,285.00.” (Fields Decl. ¶5.) The Declarant doesn’t state what his
billing rate is or what the client was billed. It is unclear if Fei Pang’s
office and Fields bill at the same rate and what rate was billed to the client.
Further, Fields does not state if he was the attorney that conducted the work
relating to this sanctions request, or if it was another attorney, or even
someone else at the office.
The Court will hear argument as to the notice and
declaration issues with the sanctions request.