Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCP00179, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP00179    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiff Soar Real Estate Investors, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendants Sea Breeze Group, LLC, Tradewinds Property Group, LLC, Charles L. McMillan, Team Investment Group, LLC, Marcus Wilson, and Maria Monjaraz  

Motion for Issue, Evidence, or Terminating Sanctions.

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

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a dispute between members of a Limited Liability Company. Plaintiff Soar Real Estate Investors, LLC (Plaintiff) filed its complaint on January 22, 2021. In its complaint, Plaintiff alleged “involuntary dissolution of limited liability company” and breach of fiduciary duty.

            Defendants Sea Breeze Group, Tradewinds Property Group, Charles L. McMillan, Team Investment Group, Marcus Wilson, and Maria Monjaraz (Defendants) collectively own 82.17 percent of the Limited Liability Company. Defendants aim to buy out Plaintiff’s membership interest in the Limited Liability Company and thereby avoid involuntary dissolution.

            On January 25, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel completion of deposition and production of documents. The court ordered Defendants to produce documents within 10 days of the order.  Additionally, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer about the deposition 10 days after the document production.

            On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for “equitable discovery enforcement orders including issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.”

LEGAL STANDARD 

            California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for a party’s refusal to obey a discovery order, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, issue sanctions, and terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030; Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390, 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 899.) A court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty. (Los Defensores, supra, at p. 390.)

            “The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.) Severe non-monetary sanctions for failure to comply with a court order are allowed only where the failure was willful. (See R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)

¿¿DISCUSSION

            On January 25, 2023, the court ordered Defendants to produce relevant documents within 10 days and the parties to meet and confer about the deposition 10 days after production. Defendant produced documents late on February 16, 2023, and February 17, 2023. (Hogue Decl., ¶¶ 13, 14; Exs. 6, 7.) Some responsive documents were missing, but Defendants agreed to further production before today’s hearing. (Opp., at p. 5.) Additionally, the parties have met and conferred about the deposition, and Defendants will have made the witness available for deposition before today’s hearing. Plaintiff has not cited any legal authority for the court to enjoin distribution of entity funds, prohibit the distribution of entity funds, or remove managing members from the entity, and the court does not find willful misconduct supporting nonmonetary sanctions. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793 [holding that discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery].) On the other hand, Plaintiff’s recovery of $920 for attorney’s fees and $60 in costs as discovery sanctions is appropriate. (Hogue Decl., ¶ 22.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion for issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions or other non-monetary equitable relief. The court orders Defendants to pay Plaintiff $920 in attorney’s fees and costs within 30 days of this order.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 21, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court