Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 24NNCV03975, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV03975, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV03975 Hearing Date: May 15, 2025 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 05/15/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 24NNCV03975
Trial Date: 03/16/2026
Case Name: CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., v. TMA PLUMBING, INC. aka T M A PLUMBING INC; and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive

2 TENTATIVE RULINGS – COMPEL RESPONSES

BACKGROUND

The instant action was filed on 9/3/2024.

The Complaint lists causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Open Book Account, (3) Account Stated, and (4) Reasonable Value.

The Complaint does not name who the Plaintiff or the Defendant(s) are.

The Complaint indicates that Plaintiff’s Assignor refers to State Compensation Insurance Fund.

Presumably, based on the caption of the Complaint, Plaintiff is Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

Presumably, based on the caption of the Complaint, Defendants are TMA Plumbing, Inc., aka T M A Plumbing Inc. and Does 1-10.

This action stems from allegations of Plaintiff’s Assignor and Defendants entering into a written agreement for Plaintiff’s Assignor to provide policies of workers compensation insurance. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the agreement by failing to pay.

Defendant, TMA Plumbing, Inc. aka T M A Plumbing Inc., filed an Answer on 12/19/2024.

MOTION 1 (Res ID 0141) - RELIEF REQUESTED¿

Plaintiff, Creditors Adjustment Bureau Inc., moves pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.300(a) & 2023.010 for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s First Demand for Identification, Production and Inspection of Documents and Other Things.

Plaintiff also moves for monetary sanctions against Defendant, TMA Plumbing, Inc. aka TMA Plumbing Inc., and its counsel Alex Gilanians in the sum of $1,572.75 for the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with this discovery motion.

Procedural – Motion 1

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Creditors Adjustment Bureau Inc.

Responding Party: No opposition submitted by Defendant

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: No opposition submitted by Defendant

Reply: No Reply submitted

16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300(c)): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

MOTION 2 (Res ID 1908) – RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff, Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., moves the Court pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 & 2023.010 for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One.

Plaintiff also moves for monetary sanctions against Defendant, TMA Plumbing, Inc. aka TMA Plumbing Inc. in the sum of $1,572.75 for the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with this discovery motion.

Procedural – Motion 2

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Creditors Adjustment Bureau Inc.

Responding Party: No opposition submitted by Defendant

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: No opposition submitted by Defendant

Reply: No Reply submitted

16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300(c)): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): 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).)

Further, if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, “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.4^th 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).)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INSPECTION DEMANDS
Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response. (CCP § 2031.260(a).)

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (CCP § 2031.300(b).)

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). (CCP § 2031.300(a).) “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 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2031.300(a)(1)-(2).)

TENTATIVE RULINGS BOTH MOTIONS

On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant with: (1) Plaintiff’s First Demand for Identification, Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents, and (2) Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories.

Defendant did not provide responses within 30 days after service. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel granted two extensions to Defendant’s counsel to provide responses.

As of the date of Plaintiff’s counsel filing these two motions, Plaintiff has not received responses.

Therefore, since Defendant has not provided timely responses, both of Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiff’s First Demand for Identification, Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents and to Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories within 20 days of this Court’s order.

Sanctions - Inspection Demands

In relevant part, 2031.300(c) states as follows:

Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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 a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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 § 2031.300(c).)

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).)

Sanctions Ruling
“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 about Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is confusing.

Although each motion requests sanctions in the amount of $1,572.75, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration for each motion states as follows:

6. My office represents numerous clients and is also counsel for Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. For matters handled in California, my customary hourly billing rate for all of my clients including Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. is $500.00.

7. I spent in excess of two (2) hours in preparing three discovery motions and anticipate incurring no less than one hour of time appearing at the hearing. The filing fee for this motion is $60.00 and $12.75 e-filing fee. Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Court enter an order awarding Plaintiff the sum of $1,572.75.00, representing the reasonable expenses which have been incurred in connection with filing this discovery motion, necessitated solely by Defendant's willful failure to respond to legitimate discovery.

(Munoz Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)

The Munoz declaration doesn’t make sense for several reasons. First off, it mentions that Munoz spent in excess of two hours in preparing three discovery motions. Here, only two motions are on calendar. Second, by stating that Munoz spent in excess of two (2) hours in preparing the three motions, this leads the Court to believe that Munoz is not requesting $1,572.75 for each motion, but instead requesting $1,572.75 in total for all three motions.

Website by Triangulus