Judge Colin Leis, Case 20STCV30395 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

On June 23, 2021, Stoops filed an amended complaint adding Guiding Hands Social Club, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company (“Guiding Hands”), as a plaintiff.

On September 15, 2021, Stoops and Guiding Hands (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), against defendants Stephen Wei-Liang Leng (“Leng”), Jennifer Leng, Kristie Do aka Kristie Do-San, and Janet Lao (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) money had and received, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) fraud, (5) negligent misrepresentation, (6) violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, (7) violation of Civil Code section 1750, (8) violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (c), and (9) conversion.

The TAC alleges that Plaintiffs (a) entered into numerous agreements with the Defendants to purchase high-end, limited-edition, luxury basketball shoes and sneakers worth $1.5 million, (b) pre-paid the full price for the shoes based on the Defendants’ invoices, but (c) received neither the shoes nor refunds for the money they paid the Defendants. (TAC, ¶ 1.)

On January 17, 2023, Stoops filed his motion to compel defendant Leng’s responses to his Requests for Admission, Set Two.

“On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: ¶ (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. ¶ (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Leng does not oppose the motion to compel on its merits, but instead argues that the court should deny the motion because Stoops failed to meet and confer with Leng before Stoops filed the motion.

“A motion [to compel further responses to requests for admission] shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that on January 13, 2023 – one court day before the deadline to file the motion – he wrote to defense counsel, Mark Mazda, and said: “My proposal regarding the discovery dispute is that we go to an IDC and stipulate to extend the filing deadline in order to get input from the court. ¶ Please advise if you are agreeable.” (Crites Decl., ¶ 8.) Not receiving a response from attorney Mazda by the next business day of January 17, and having received only boilerplate responses to the requests for admission, Plaintiff’s counsel concluded “any meet and confer effort will be futile.” (Crites Decl., ¶ 8.)[1] Thus, Plaintiff filed his motion the afternoon of January 17. Plaintiff’s January 13 efforts do not satisfy his obligation to attempt a reasonable and good faith effort to informally resolve each issue raised in the moving papers.

Based on the foregoing, the court denies plaintiff Jackson Stoops’ Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set Two.

The court denies defendants’ request for sanctions because their request does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040.

[1] On February 6, 2023, plaintiff filed the declaration of attorney Matthew Fletcher. Fletcher declares that on the morning of Friday January 13, he called defense counsel to try to meet-and-confer. Fletcher’s February 6 declaration is untimely because plaintiff’s meet-and-confer declaration should have been filed with his motion on January 17. (Code of Civ. Proc. 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) In any event, Fletcher’s declaration does not establish plaintiff engaged in a good faith effort to meet-and-confer because a phone call the Friday morning before a three-day holiday is not a good faith effort for a motion due the following court day on Tuesday.

JACKSON stoops , Plaintiff, vs. stephen wei-liang leng , et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	20STCV30395

	Hearing Date:	February 24, 2023

	Time:	8:30 a.m.

	[Tentative] Order RE: plaintiff’S Motion to compel responses to request for admissions, set two