Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 20CHCV00631, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 20CHCV00631    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

Motion filed: 2/7/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mark A. Liker

RESPONDING PARTY: none

NOTICE: ok 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Roshmore Development Inc. (“Roshmore”) to comply with the Court’s November 1, 2023, order compelling Roshmore to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,760.00. Additionally, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,850.00 in the instant motion.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a dispute regarding real property commonly known as 28212 Kelly Johnson Parkway #215 and #225 which are medical office suites.

On October 15, 2020, Plaintiff Mark A. Liker (“Plaintiff”) filed the underlying complaint in this action for Breach of Contract. On October 20, 2020, Plaintiff served a Lis Pendens on Defendants/Cross-Complainants Roshmore and Cochran, Inc. (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”), which he recorded on January 26, 2021. Subsequently, Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the Lis Pendens.

On April 2, 2021, Cross-Complainants filed their Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Mark A. Liker and Lucy Holdings, LLC (Cross-Defendants). Subsequently, on August 3, 2023, Cross-Defendants filed operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Indemnity, (4) Declaratory Relief, and (5) Negligence.

On November 1, 2023, the Department F47 Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and awarded Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $2,760.00. (11/1/23 Minute Order.)

On February 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Compliance of the Court’s November 1, 2023, Minute Order (the “Motion”).

On February 20, 2024, the present case was assigned to Department F49.

No opposing papers have been received.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 contains the remedy for a failure to obey an order compelling further response:

Except as provided in subdivision (j), if a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (i).) The exception in subdivision (j) pertains to electronically stored information that has been lost or damaged.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320 contains the remedy for a party’s failure to produce responsive documents in accordance with its responses to demands for production. It states, "If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . . thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)       

A.    Improperly Filing

Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.  (See Govt. Code § 70617(a)(4) (setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing); see also Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011) (“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”)) 

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff improperly combined and filed four motions as a single filing.  Plaintiff’s instant Motion seeks orders from the Court to: (1) compel Roshmore’s compliance with the Court’s November 1, 2023 order, (2) compel Roshmore’s responses to Plaintiff’s subsequent Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (Requests Nos. 1-7), (3) compel Roshmore’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (Interrogatories 1 – 26), and (4) compel Roshmore’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Mot., at 4, 8.)

Considering that combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System, unfairly advantages filer over other litigants, and could result in the avoidance of paying separate filing fees, the Court directs Plaintiff to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees for each motion.

Accordingly, the Court will proceed to review and rule only on the Motion to Compel Compliance, as it is appropriately indicated in the motion’s title and a single filing fee has been paid.

B.     Motion to Compel Compliance

Here, Plaintiff argues that as of the filing of the instant Motion, Roshmore has not served any supplemental responses ordered by the Court, nor has Roshmore paid monetary sanctions ordered in the amount of 2,760. (Arnold Decl., ¶ 20.) Furthermore, Defendant Roshmore does not oppose Plaintiff’s instant Motion.

Under this record, Defendant Roshmore has not complied with the Court’s November 1, 2023, order for failing to provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Request Nos. 1-18.)

Additionally, Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,850.00, comprising $2,850.00 in attorney’s fees incurred for the instant Motion and an additional $1,000.00 sanction as per Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050 subdivision (a).

Regarding the attorney’s fees, Plaintiff’s counsel states that they are calculated based on an hourly rate of $450.00, encompassing 4.2 hours in drafting the meet and confer emails and the instant Motion. The Court deems the hourly rate to be reasonable; however, it adjusts the total hours to 2 hours by removing the hours spent on meet and confer and other improperly combined motions, totaling $960.00. ($450.00/hr X 2 hrs for drafting the Motion + $60 filing fee.)

Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant Roshmore’s failure to comply with the Court’s November 1, 2023 order constitutes a lack of good faith, highlighting Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, subdivision (a)(1), which states, “The party, person, or attorney did not respond in good faith to request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, 2020.510, or 2025.210, or to an inspection demand made pursuant to Section 2031.010.”

The Court considers subdivision (d) under the same section, which mandates that “Sanctions pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party, person, or attorney against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party, person, or attorney to be heard.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.050, subd. (d).) Accordingly, the Court will hear Defendant’s arguments at the hearing to further decide on this monetary sanction.

            Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance is GRANTED IN PART.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Roshmore is ordered to comply with the Court’s November 1, 2023 Order to provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Request Nos. 1-18) and to pay monetary sanction ordered in the amount of $2,760.00 within 10 days of receiving of this order.

Defendant Roshmore and its counsel are further ordered to, jointly and severally, pay Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $960.00.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice of this order.