Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV28183, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28183    Hearing Date: November 13, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff Peter J. Zomber and Law Offices of Peter J. Zomber, PC initiated this action against Defendant John Patrick Johnson. Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint on January 23, 2023, asserting (1) breach of contract and (2) quantum meruit.

            The FAC alleges that the parties entered into a written fee agreement in 2004, which encompassed representation in several matters. (FAC ¶ 7.) Plaintiff was retained to represent Defendant in business matters related to Defendant’s divorce. (Id., ¶ 8.) Around July 2011, Plaintiff left the law firm he was working for and formed his own firm, and Defendant decided to have Plaintiff continue representing him. (Id., ¶ 9.) At this time, the parties entered into an oral agreement relating to the representation and fees. (Ibid.)

            Around 2014, Plaintiff represented Defendant in family law matters after Defendant’s attorney substituted out. (FAC ¶ 10.) Defendant retained another family law attorney at the end of 2014. (Ibid.) In 2015, Plaintiff’s first law firm dissolved, and he formed Peter J. Zomber PC. (Id., ¶ 11.) Defendant again followed Plaintiff to the new firm and continued to be represented by Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Plaintiff continued to work on Defendant’s divorce case and other matters. (Ibid.) As in previous years, Defendant continued to pay periodic lump sums toward open invoices and ongoing work. (Ibid.) In January 2017, Defendant’s second family law attorney abruptly dissociated from the case and left Plaintiff to try the divorce case. (Id., ¶ 12.)

            Around April 2020, Defendant’s other wife filed for divorce, and Defendant attempted to represent himself in the matter for a while before retaining Plaintiff to represent him. (FAC ¶¶ 13-15.) The first divorce case concluded in May 2021, and Defendant continued to pay periodic sums for open invoices on both divorce cases. (Id., ¶ 17.) Defendant stopped making payments in December 2021 and has since refused to arbitrate the fee dispute. (Id., ¶¶ 18-22.) This lawsuit followed.

            Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on May 24, 2023, and an amended answer on June 16, 2023. The amended answer alleges that Plaintiff Zomber was inexperienced in family law matters and inadequately represented Defendant in the dissolution proceedings.

            On October 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to compel further responses to Requests for Admission and the associated Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Defendant filed his oppositions on October 30 and 31, 2023. Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 3, 2023.   

LEGAL STANDARD

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).)  

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).)  

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 Plaintiffs have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Turk Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            The subject RFAs mostly ask Defendant to admit: that Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiffs certain hourly rates; that Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff’s hourly rates; the time of Defendant’s last payment to Plaintiffs; that Defendant owes certain amounts; that Defendant did not make payments towards outstanding amounts; and that Defendant made intermittent payments towards certain outstanding amounts.

            Other RFAs ask Defendant to admit: that Defendant requested Plaintiff Zomber’s wife to continue working on a certain legal matter; that Defendant claimed financial hardship as the reason for not paying; that Defendant failed to execute a substitution of attorney form despite multiple requests; and that Defendant was aware Plaintiff Zomber supervised his wife’s work.

            Defendant incorporated the same objection to each RFA. Specifically, Defendant objected that the RFAs call for legal conclusions and are burdensome and overreaching given the known disputes over issues such as whether the parties entered into any agreements and whether Defendant owes certain amounts. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs are intentionally harassing Defendant by propounding extensive RFAs that Plaintiffs know Defendant will deny, so that Plaintiffs can force Defendant to respond to the corresponding FROG No. 17.1. Based on this objection, Defendant refused to admit or deny the RFAs.    

However, the RFAs are narrowly tailored to ascertain Defendant’s contentions regarding particular issues. “Requests for admission are not restricted to facts or documents, but apply to conclusions, opinions, and even legal questions.” (City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 353.) “[T]he fact that the request is for the admission of a controversial matter, or one involving complex facts, or calls for an opinion, is of no moment.” (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 752.) Plaintiffs are entitled to propound RFAs in an attempt to narrow the disputed issues for trial. The fact that Defendant clearly disputes liability does not preclude Plaintiffs from propounding RFAs to ascertain Defendant’s position on specific issues relating to liability.

If Defendant contests the matters raised in the RFAs, he should simply deny the RFAs. The corresponding information required under FROG No. 17.1 is part of routine discovery and is not an undue burden. The time and effort that Defendant utilized drafting this opposition could have been used to respond to the discovery instead. Defendant’s arguments do not constitute substantial justification for failing to properly respond to the discovery. Hence, sanctions are warranted.

For the two motions, Plaintiffs request a total of $15,520 for 19.4 hours at $800 per hour. (Turk Decl. ¶¶ 12-13.) This amount is exaggerated given the simplicity of the motions. The Court finds $1,720 to be reasonable, representing 4 hours at a rate of $400 per hour, plus $120 in filing fees.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Defendant shall provide further responses to the subject RFAs and corresponding FROG No. 17.1 within 15 days. The Court sanctions Defendant and his counsel in the total amount of $1,720, to be paid within 30 days.