Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 22PSCV03110, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV03110, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT DEMANDS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF BAO LI DA INTERNATIONAL INC.AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD is DENIED.

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT DEMANDS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF BAO LI DA INTERNATIONAL INC.AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD is DENIED.

(3) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT DEMANDS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF BAO LI DA INTERNATIONAL INC.AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD is DENIED.

All motions are denied without prejudice. The court does not impose monetary sanctions upon either party and/or counsel of record.

This is a contracts case. Plaintiff Bao Li Da International, Inc. alleges the following against Defendant Rich Pacific USA, Inc.: Between October and November 2021, the parties signed agreements for FedEx and DHL accounts to use for shipments. Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant commissions for use of the accounts plus a freight deposit, the latter of which would be refunded upon termination of the agreement. “Defendant breached the Agreements by failing to return the freight deposit balance of no less than $55,375.55 and failing to facilitate Plaintiff’s use of FedEx accounts and failing to provide services with official FedEx service standard at discounted freight rate as required under the Agreements. (First Amended Complaint (FAC) p. 4.)

1.     Breach of Contract

2.     Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

3.     Conversion

4.     Unjust Enrichment

5.     Money Had and Received

On April 14, 2023, Defendant filed its answer and a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and USKY Express Co., Ltd for:

On September 20, 2023, the court noted that the parties may proceed with formal discovery as issues remained unresolved after the IDC.

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed its opposition. (The opposition to the RFP and FROG are consolidated into one opposition; the opposition to the RFA motion is filed separately.)

The three motions are denied because the motions fail to meet basic memorandum requirements.

According to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, a memorandum is to consist of “a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” The motions do none.

First, the motions to not explain the facts of the case, which are already unclear from the complaint and FAC.

Second, the motions are identical in that Defendant did not change the relief it seeks as for all three. It only seeks further and complete responses to “first set form interrogatories.” (Motions p. 2:8-13.) But, based off the caption of the filings, there are three different discovery devices at issue; FROGs, RFP (presuming that is equivalent to Document Demands), and RFAs.

Third, as the motions are identical, the legal authority under which the motion was also not changed. The motions only cite to CCP section 2030.300 subdivision (a), which only applies to interrogatories. (Motions p. 4:1-3.)

Fourth, the motions do not provide a basic description of the discovery sought and any meaningful explanation as to why they are relevant.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the motions are denied without prejudice should the supplemental responses not sufficiently respond to the discovery. As noted by Defendant in its meet and confer email (Reply, Ex. C), a party has a duty to answer if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) Here, a review of the separate statement indicates that subject of nearly all the discovery is apparent (i.e., not vague, not ambiguous, not intelligible, nor other ways in which Plaintiff claims as based upon their objections). For example, Plaintiff must know of USKY as they are sister companies. Thus, an objection that USKY is an unidentified term is disingenuous. Therefore, should there be any outstanding discovery regarding the three accounts, the motions are denied without prejudice.

[1] In the alternative, the motions may be moot as supplemental responses were received, and the Reply does not take disagree otherwise but maintains because the responses were served after the motions, the issue of further responses is still at issue. (Reply p. 2.) That is not so. If sufficient responses were provided after the motions, the motions are moot as there is no controversy. To the extent that either party seeks monetary sanctions, the court declines to do so as the parties attended an IDC and engaged in meet and confer efforts.