Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 19BBCV00181, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19BBCV00181 Hearing Date: August 1, 2022 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 3
JESSE WEINER vs. JIAN-XIANG SHI | Case No.: | 19BBCV00181 [c/w 19BBCV00329] |
Hearing Date: | August 1, 2022 | |
Time: | ||
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT JESSE WEINER’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MORGAN SHI TO RESPOND TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
| ||
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION |
| |
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jesse Weiner
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Jianxiang Shi
Plaintiff and Cross-Defendasnt Jesse Weiner’s Motion to Compel Defendant Morgan Shi to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions
The court considered the moving papers and opposition filed in connection with this motion. No reply was filed.
///
///
///
///
BACKGROUND
This consolidated action arises out of a business relationship between Jian-Xiang (Morgan) Shi (“Shi”), Qinghua (Quinn) Chen (“Chen”), and Fukang (Frank) Wan (“Wan”), on the one hand, and Jessie Weiner (“Weiner”) and Miaoxin Yu (“Yu”), on the other hand.
On February 27, 2019, Weiner filed a wrongful termination action against Shi, Chen, and Wan, among others (Case No. 19BBCV00181). On April 16, 2019, Weiner and Yu (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) together filed a wrongful eviction action against Chen and Wan (Case No. 19BBCV00329).
On November 12, 2021, Weiner served Special Interrogatories, Set One to Shi. (Behnam Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. B.) No responses to the interrogatories were served. (Behnam Decl., ¶ 4.)
Weiner now moves for an order compelling Shi to serve verified responses without objections to the special interrogatories.
LEGAL STANDARD
If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)
If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Shi contends that he was never properly served with the special interrogatories nor with the instant motion. Both the interrogatories and the motion to compel were served via electronic service, and counsel for Shi contends that counsel for Weiner never confirmed the appropriate electronic service address by telephone or email. (Chen Decl., ¶ 5; Scroggins Decl., ¶ 5.) Confirmation is required to effectuate electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (e)(1) [“A party represented by counsel, who has appeared in an action or proceeding, shall accept electronic service of a notice or document that may be served by mail…. Before first serving a represented party electronically, the serving party shall confirm by telephone or email the appropriate electronic service address for counsel being served.”].) For that reason, the court finds that the motion must be denied without prejudice to Weiner properly serving the interrogatories and any subsequent discovery motion, if necessary.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court denies Weiner’s motion to compel without prejudice. The court declines to impose monetary sanctions against any party.
Shi is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Colin Leis
Judge of the Superior Court