Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 23PSCV00394, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00394, Date: 2025-02-20 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) Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,040.70 is GRANTED.

(2) Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,040.70 is GRANTED.

(3) Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,040.70 is GRANTED.

(4) Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,040.70 is GRANTED.

All motions are granted, but sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $3,268.80, which is payable within 20 days of the hearing.

This case arises from an attempt to collect a judgment. Plaintiff OR Construction, Inc. alleges the following against Defendants Eman Tanagho (“Eman”) and Michael Tanagho (“Michael”) (collectively, “Defendants”): On March 23, 2021, Plaintiff received a final judgment in case no. 19PSCV01164 entitled OR CONSTRUCTION, INC. vs EMAN TANAGHO. However, to prevent Plaintiff’s from collecting their claim, Eman transferred certain real property to her children, Jamil and Michael.[1]

On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit asserting the following causes of action (COAs):

On November 22, 2023, the proof of public was filed indicating that the summons was issued in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on 11/01/23, 11/08/23, 11/15/23, and 11/22/23.[2]

On April 23, 2024, the court granted Defendants’ motion to vacate and set aside defaults because the default was entered due to attorney error.[3]

On December 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant four motions (after an unsuccessful IDC).

On January 30, 2025, the court (Department H) held a hearing on Defendant Tanagho’s ex-parte for ‘An Order To Continue All Four Of Plaintiff Or Contruction’s Motion To Compel Hearings.’ The ex-parte was brought on the grounds that Defense Counsel had complications during her pregnancy delivery on 11/30/24. Due to the bleeding, she was instructed to remain home and rest. The doctor’s note indicate that she may return to work on 2/3/25. With that, the court granted in part the ex parte stating the following: “1. The Court continues the hearings on the motions to compel set for 2/10/25, 2/13/25, and 2/19/25 to 2/20/25, at 10 a.m., so all four motions to compel will be heard the same date in Department O. 2. The Court grants Defendant an extension on the deadline to file oppositions to 2/12/25. Plaintiff shall have until 2/17 to file replies. 3. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on 2/3/25 (the return-to-work date listed on defense counsel’s note attached as Exhibit 1 to the ex parte application) in case there is a [sic] update on the medical condition such that a further continuance is appropriate.”

As all motions are nearly identical and involve the same objections, the court will provide a consolidated analysis.

According to the motions, all the subject discovery were served on 7/11/24, meaning responses were due by 8/13/24. (The discovery was directed to Defendant Michael.)

The SROGs, for example, sought responses as to any communications between Michael and Eman regarding ownership of the subject residence or that Michael state his monetary contribution towards the utility services of the residence.[4] The RFPs sought document evidence of, for example, the foregoing. The RFAs sought admissions that, for example, Michael did not provide nothing of monetary value to Defendant Eman in exchange for Defendant Michael’s ownership interest in the residence. (RFA No. 1.)

On 8/7/24, Defense Counsel requested an extension, which was granted by Plaintiff’s Counsel. Plaintiff’s attorney agreed to an extension until 8/26/24 conditioned upon opposing counsel providing Defendant Michael Tanagho’s responses without evidentiary objections or privilege assertions. (See Southwick Decl., Ex. 2 [email from Plaintiff’s Counsel to Defense Counsel dated 8/7/24], p. 13 of 21 of PDF [“Yes, I agree to extend your client Michael Tanagho’s discovery response deadline to August 26, 2024 if you accept one condition. That Mr. Tanagho’s responses contain no objections or privilege assertions to any of my client OR Construction, Inc’s discovery requests. In other words, your client’s responses shall set forth only factual allegations, and/or produce documents, that are responsive to the particular discovery requests served on July 11, 2024 by my office on behalf of our client.”], emphasis added.)[5]

Defendant Michael Tanagho was born on May 29, 2002, and is an adult, however, he has life-long physical, mental and emotional disabilities which prevent him from providing any responses, whether meaningful or not. He has been under medical treatment with various doctors for years, and is waiting for a doctor’s letter or report which confirms the aforementioned disabilities, and inability to provide responses, which will be produced upon receipt. (Southwick Decl., Ex. 3, pp. 14-15 of 21 of PDF.)

This response fails for multiple reasons. First, the responses do not abide the condition that Defendant provide responses without objections. Second, the relevant statutes require that the party respond to each request, whereas here, there is a blanket general objection. (See e.g., Code of Civil Procedure §2030.210(a)) [“The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory….”].) Third, the objections are not verified. Fourth, Defendant’s objection is excessively vague and otherwise evasive.[6]

To the extent that Michael is unable to participate in the lawsuit due to a “life-long” condition, it is reasonable to presume that any medical documentation to support such would be immediately available and immediately provided to Plaintiff. Instead, on 10/3/24, Plaintiff’s Counsel received an email from Defense Counsel with an imaged, unsigned letter allegedly from Randy Karu, M.D., who appears to be a plastic surgeon. All in all, despite extensions, Defendant Michael has failed to provide code-compliant responses. Therefore, the court grants all motions.

As for monetary sanctions, the court generally refrains from imposing them. However, considering the evasive discovery, there does appear to be a misuse of discovery. (See CCP section 2023.010, ¶(f).)

For each motion, Counsel Southwick seeks $873.44 [calculated as follows: 10.75 hours for all four motions x $325/hour]. Additionally, Counsel anticipates court filing fees of $60.00, electronic service fees of $11.76, and court reporter fees of $95.50 ($382.00 half-day fee split between the motions) for total costs of approximately $167.2 per motion.

Here, utilizing the Lodestar approach and in light of the totality of the circumstances—namely as Counsel need not expend time reading an opposition and drafting a reply—the court reduces the total expended hours to 8.5 hours ($325x8.5=$2,600).

Therefore, the court awards sanctions in the total amount of $3,268.80 ($2,600 + ($167.20x4=$668.80).

Based on the foregoing, all motions are granted, but sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $3,268.80, which is payable within 20 days of this hearing.

[1] Jamil passed away and his undivided, half interest in the real property was passed to Michael as a surviving joint tenant.

[2] Thus, service was statutorily compliant.

[3] Defense Counsel brought forth the motion under the discretionary provision of CCP section 473(b) on the grounds that she was preoccupied with another case. The court noted that discretionary relief would not be permissible in such circumstances, but did note mandatory relief was available as that provision applies even when the attorney has no excuse. (Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1210.)

[4] The propounded discovery is not stated in the separate statement but instead attached to Counsel Southwick’s declarations per motion.

[5] That same email indicates that Defense Counsel did not respond to Plaintiff Counsel’s “multiple voicemail messages and emails over the past few weeks regarding the upcoming [CMC].”

[6] On page 3 of the motions, Plaintiff cites to Wheeler v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2024) 15 Cal. 5th 1193 to support its proposition of specificity. However, that case did not involve discovery but instead a criminal trial and the cited pages involved objections in reference to whether a judgment should be set aside. (Id. at p. 1216-1217 [“Specificity is required both to enable the court to make an informed ruling on the ... objection and to enable the party proffering the evidence to cure the defect in the evidence. ‘[T]he objection must be made in such a way as to alert the trial court to the nature of the anticipated evidence and the basis on which exclusion is sought, and to afford the [party offering evidence] an opportunity to establish its admissibility.’” [internal citations omitted].)