Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV46960, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46960    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: 74

Dahada Service America, Inc. v. Min Chul Jeon, et al.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Min Chul Jeon’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Sanctions against Cross-Defendant Hyuk Jae Kim

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 [“All papers opposing a motion […] shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days […] before the hearing.”].)

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute over alleged embezzlement.

            On December 8, 2020, Dahada Service America, Inc. (Dahada) filed a complaint against Min Chul Jeon and others. In the complaint, Dahada alleged breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraudulent transfer, “unjust enrichment,” constructive fraud, various RICO violations, and declaratory relief.

            On February 3, 2021, Min Chul Jeon and others filed a cross-complaint against Dahada, Hyuk Jae Kim, and others.

            On November 2, 2022, Min Chul Jeon served Hyuk Jae Kim with discovery, including requests for production of documents, set one (RFPs). Hyuk Jae Kim failed to timely respond.

            On January 20, 2023, Min Chul Jeon filed this motion to compel discovery responses to the RFPs.

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).)¿

DISCUSSION

            Given Hyuk Jae Kim’s failure to timely respond to the RFPs, the court will grant this motion to compel. In addition, the court finds that sanctions are necessary. Min Chul Jeon’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, and he has substantiated his request with a breakdown of work performed. (Park Decl., ¶ 4.) However, the court finds the work in this motion duplicates that in Counsel for Min Chul Jeon’s other motions to compel discovery in this case. And no opposition was timely filed for Min Chul Jeon’s counsel to review. The court will reduce the award to $468.91 ($400 x (1 hour (motion) + $68.91 fees)).

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant and Cross-Complainant Min Chul Jeon’s motion to compel discovery responses and request for monetary sanctions. The court orders Cross-Defendant Hyuk Jae Kim to serve without objection Code Compliant responses to the RFPs within 10 days. The court orders sanctions against Cross-Defendant Hyuk Jae Kim in the sum of $468.91 payable to Defendant and Cross-Complainant Min Chul Jeon by November 17, 2023.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Min Chul Jeon is ordered to give notice.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Min Chul Jeon’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions against Cross-Defendant Hyuk Jae Kim

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 [“All papers opposing a motion […] shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days […] before the hearing.”].)

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute over alleged embezzlement.

            On December 8, 2020, Dahada Service America, Inc. (Dahada) filed a complaint against Min Chul Jeon and others. In the complaint, Dahada alleged breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraudulent transfer, “unjust enrichment,” constructive fraud, various RICO violations, and declaratory relief.

            On February 3, 2021, Min Chul Jeon and others filed a cross-complaint against Dahada, Hyuk Jae Kim, and others.

            On November 2, 2022, Min Chul Jeon served Hyuk Jae Kim with discovery, including form interrogatories and special interrogatories. Hyuk Jae Kim failed to timely respond.

            On January 20, 2023, Min Chul Jeon filed this motion to compel discovery responses to the form interrogatories and 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).)¿

DISCUSSION

            Given Hyuk Jae Kim’s failure to timely respond to the form interrogatories and special interrogatories, the court will grant this motion to compel. In addition, the court finds that sanctions are necessary. Min Chul Jeon’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, and he has substantiated his request with a breakdown of work performed. (Park Decl., ¶ 4.) However, the court finds the work in this motion duplicates that in Counsel for Min Chul Jeon’s other motions to compel discovery in this case. And no opposition was timely filed for Min Chul Jeon’s counsel to review. The court will reduce the award to $868.91 ($400 x (1.5 hour (motion) + .5 (preparation of reply) + $68.91 fees)).

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant and Cross-Complainant Min Chul Jeon’s motion to compel discovery responses and request for monetary sanctions. The court orders Cross-Defendant Hyuk Jae Kim to serve without objection Code Compliant responses to the special interrogatories and form interrogatories within 10 days. The court orders sanctions against Cross-Defendant Hyuk Jae Kim in the sum of $868.91 payable to Defendant and Cross-Complainant Min Chul Jeon by November 17, 2023.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Min Chul Jeon is ordered to give notice.