Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV35157, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35157    Hearing Date: March 27, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff General Industrial Repair filed a complaint against Defendants Per Partners Limited LP, David B. Rosenfield, and Angelina A. Rosenfield alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) intentional misrepresentation; and (5) negligent misrepresentation.

            The dispute arises from a lease agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Per Partners Limited LP. Defendant David Rosenfield is allegedly a general partner of Per Partners. Plaintiff leased a business premises from Per Partners starting in October 2007. The lease was a five-year lease, but the parties agreed to a five-year extension in October 2012, extending the lease to October 2017. Plaintiff alleges that around September 2017, the parties entered into another five-year extension that extended the lease to October 2022. Defendants did not sign this second extension agreement, but Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Angie Rosenfield assured Plaintiff that if Plaintiff became current on rent payments and made certain repairs, the lease would be extended to 2022. Plaintiff allegedly relied on this representation to continue paying rent and making additional improvements to the premises.

            In June 2021, Defendant David Rosenfield notified Plaintiff that Defendant Per Partners was terminating the lease. Per Partners apparently deemed the lease to be a month-to-month contract despite the alleged extension to 2022. Plaintiff’s breach of contract and fraud claims stem from the premature termination of the lease and Defendants’ misrepresentations that the lease would be extended to 2022.

            On February 10, 2022, Per Partners filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and its principal, alleging breach of contract, damage to real property, conversion, negligence, private nuisance, and declaratory relief.  

            On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendants’ further responses to certain Requests for Admission and the associated Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Plaintiff seeks information relating to the company Armistead & Companies, Ltd., a partner of Defendant Per Partners. Defendants objected on relevance grounds, noting that Armistead is not named as a party or mentioned anywhere in the complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

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 an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete or an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)  

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)  

MEET AND CONFER

Motions to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the issue informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b)(1).) The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer. Plaintiff sent correspondence at the end of the day on November 21, 2022, shortly before the Thanksgiving holiday and on the eve of the filing deadline, requesting further responses by noon the next day, November 22, 2022. (Hong Decl. ¶ 11; Bubman Decl., Ex. 4.) This does not demonstrate a genuine effort to resolve the matter informally. Nonetheless, given the relative simplicity of the issues involved and the parties’ apparent impasse, the Court will proceed on the merits.  

DISCUSSION

            “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

The subject RFAs seek corporate information about Armistead as well as the relationship between Armistead and each of the Defendants. Plaintiff claims that the requests are “designed to flesh out the relationship between the named Defendants and Armistead & Companies, LTD (“ARMISTEAD”), the entity’s involvement in Defendants’ business, and to investigate the past and present standing of ARMISTEAD as a corporate entity.” (Hong Decl. ¶ 9.) However, Plaintiff fails to articulate the relevance of doing this. Although Defendants admitted that Armistead is a partner of Per Partners, not every entity associated with Per Partners or Defendants is subject to investigation through this lawsuit.

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint is that Defendants prematurely terminated the lease and defrauded Plaintiff into believing that the lease would be extended. There is no indication that Armistead factors into this simply because it is related to Defendants. Defendants may be related to any number of entities and individuals. Section 2017.010 may be broad, but it is not unlimited. (Haniff v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 191, 205.) Therefore, Defendants properly objected to the requests at issue.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are DENIED. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.