Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: GC049276, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: GC049276 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 08/29/2024 – 8:30am
Case No. GC049276
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: NANTONG TONGYU DRAWNWORK PRODUCTS CO., LTD. et al. v. LIQUI GAO, et
al.
TENTATIVE
RULING – COMPEL RESPONSES
Moving Party: Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors, Nantong Tongyu
Drawnwork Products Co., Ltd; Zhao Zhuang Jintian Commerce & Trade Ltd.; Changzhou
Jiaen Bed-Clothes Productions Co.; Guangdong Silique Int’l Group Manufacturer;
Kangfumei Textile Co. Ltd. of Zhuji City
Responding Party: No Opposition
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion
Opposition Papers: No Opposition
Reply: Notice of Non-Opposition
RELIEF REQUESTED¿
“PLAINTIFFS/JUDGMENT
CREDITORS NANTONG TONGYU DRAWNWORK PRODUCTS CO., LTD, ZHAO ZHUANG JINTIAN
COMMERCE & TRADE LTD, CHANGZHOU JIAEN BED-CLOTHES PRODUCTIONS CO.,
GUANGDONG SILIQUE INT’L GROUP MANUFACTURER, KANGFUMEI TEXTILE CO. LTD OF ZHUJI
CITY (collectively known hereinafter as “Plaintiffs” or “Moving Party”) will
move this Court:
1.
For an order compelling DEFENDANT ERIC RAN ZHANG to provide written,
verified answers to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, with
document production, and without objections as set forth herein; and
2.
For an order of monetary sanctions as against DEFENDANT ERIC RAN ZHANG,
in the amount of $1560.00 for failing to provide any responses to the requests
for production of documents.
This
motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2031.300,
and is brought by reason of the failure of Responding Party to provide any
responses to the requests for production of documents.
This
motion is based upon this notice, the attached memorandum of points and
authorities, Declaration of Jason A. Feazell, exhibits, and upon any other oral
and documentary evidence that may be presented at the time of the hearing.”
(Pl.
Mot. p. 2.)
Procedural
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): Uncertain
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).)
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).)
Generally
speaking, the Court agrees that responses should be compelled here.
Plaintiffs’
counsel’s declaration was signed on August 2, 2024; therefore, assuming the
instant discovery was served on November 14, 2023, over 30 days have passed
since the discovery was propounded.
However,
the Court needs Plaintiffs’ counsel to address several issues before this
motion is granted.
First,
Plaintiffs’ counsel states that responding party’s counsel was relieved of his
duty by the Court at the hearing of February 2, 2024. Here, the Court does not
find support for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement. It appears that, based on the
orders of 2/2/2024 and 2/5/2024, the attorney for the two Defendants, DE &
Z, LLC and Landmark Tex, Inc., were relieved as counsel. The Court does not see
anything in its record that the counsel for the Defendant in which this motion
is directed at, Eric Ran Zhang, was relieved as counsel.
Therefore,
the Court would like Plaintiffs’ counsel to address the issue of whether
Defendant, Eric Ran Zhang’s, counsel was actually relieved.
The
Court would like this addressed because despite Plaintiffs’ counsel stating
that Defendant Eric Ran Zhang’s counsel was relieved, Plaintiffs’ counsel also
indicates that on 12/10/2023, Eric Ran Zhang’s counsel substituted out of the
matter. The Court notes that on 12/12/2023 a document was filed that is titled
“Substitution of Attorney – Civil (Without Court Order).” This document
indicates that Defendant Eric Ran Zhang is now representing himself.
Further,
the Court has service issues that it needs Plaintiffs’ counsel to address.
Plaintiffs’
counsel lists service on Defendant by first class mail and by electronic mail
for the instant motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel lists three different addresses as
follows:
1.
Deng
H. Zhang
Eric Ran Zhang
Liqiu Gao
PO Box 196, Chino Hills, CA 91709
13491 Falcon Ridge Rd. Corona, CA 92880
derekzhang1488@gmail.com
2.
Landmark
Tex, Inc.
950 S. Wanamaker Ave.
Ontario, CA 91761
3.
DE
& Z, LLC
11488 E. Mission Blvd.
Pomona, CA 91766
First,
the Court is unclear why Plaintiffs listed this motion being served on Landmark
Tex, Inc. and DE & Z LLC. To the Court’s understanding, this motion is only
directed at Defendant Eric Ran Zhang.
Second,
to the extent that this motion’s proof of service is alleging service via first
class mail, it is confused as to why Plaintiffs’ counsel listed a Chino Hills
address and a Corona address as a single address. Does Plaintiffs’ counsel list
this as a single address, or does Plaintiffs’ counsel list this as two
different addresses. Further, to which Defendant is Plaintiffs’ counsel stating
that each address applies to?
On
eCourt, Eric Ran Zhang has an address of 13491 Falcon Ridge Rd., Corona, CA
92880.
Further,
to the extent that Plaintiffs’ counsel is alleging service via electronic mail,
Plaintiffs’ counsel should be prepared to address if Defendant can accept
electronic service. In the 12/12/2023 Substitution of Attorney, for Defendant’s
address, only the mailing address is listed for the address of the new legal
representative.
Aside
from addressing the service issues that this Court pointed out about service of
the actual motion itself, Plaintiffs should be prepared to address service of
the actual discovery that this motion is based on.
For
the actual discovery, the service list on the proof of service lists Jason J.L.
Yang as counsel for Defendant that was served the discovery. However, the mailing
address and the email address listed on the 11/14/2024 proof of service does
not have the same mailing address nor the same email address that is listed on
eCourt for Jason J.L. Yang.
The
Court will hear argument.
Sanctions
In
relevant part of CCP § 2031.300(c):
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).)
“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).)
Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel requests an order of
monetary sanctions against Defendant Eric Ran Zhang in the amount of $1,560.00
for failing to provide any responses to the requests for production of
documents.
Feazell’s declaration explains the request for
sanctions as follows:
6. Moving Party has incurred the following
expenses in connection with this motion. ATTORNEY FEES: 1) preparation of
motion: 2.5 hours; 2) anticipated time to review any opposition and prepare a
reply: .5 hours; 3) anticipated time to travel to court and appear at the
hearing on this motion: 2 hours. COSTS: filing fee for the motion $60.
7. My firm is charging $300.00 per hour
for my work in this case. As a result, Moving Party seeks monetary sanctions in
the amount of $1,560.00 consisting of 1) attorney fees: 5 hours times $300 per
hour; and 2) filing fee of $60.
(Feazell Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)
The Court will hear
argument. The Court notes that no Opposition was submitted. The Court notes
that a notice of non-opposition was submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel.