Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV00689, Date: 2024-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00689    Hearing Date: December 20, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING TERMINATING, ISSUE, AND/OR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

Motion filed: 11/25/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aiden Bohlouli

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff James Hoseini

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court imposing terminating, evidentiary and/or issue sanctions against Plaintiff James Hoseini for failing to comply with the Court’s October 21, 2024, Court Order, or alternatively imposing one of the foregoing sanctions and/or ordering Plaintiff James Hoseini to serve code compliant responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 4 through 10, without objection and produce all responsive documents in his possession, in compliance with the Court’s prior orders. Additionally, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aiden Bohlouli seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,230.00 against Plaintiff James Hoseini.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The request for monetary sanction is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action stems from alleged fraud by joint venture partners.  

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant James Hoseini (“Hoseini”) initiated this action against Defendants Reza Abad, Aiden Bohlouli (“Bohlouli”), Teza Products, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1-50. Subsequently, on March 20, 2023, Hoseini filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against all Defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) breach of written contract, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) elder abuse, (5) accounting, and (6) constructive trust. Subsequently, on April 24, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer to the FAC.

On the same day, April 24, 2023, Defendants filed their Cross-Complaint against Hoseini and Roes 1 to 20, which was subsequently amended on September 1, 2023, to join Teza Doors, Inc., as an additional Cross-Complainant. This operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) alleges the following causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) conversion, (3) constructive trust, and (4) permanent injunction.

On June 17, 2024, the Court granted Bohlouli’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Hoseini’s Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”), Set Two. (6/17/24 Minute Order.)

Subsequently, on October 21, 2024, the Court granted Bohlouli’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Compliance with the Court’s June 17, 2024, Order. (10/21/24 Minute Order.)

On November 25, 2024, Bohlouli filed the instant Motion for an Order Imposing Terminating, Issue and/or Evidentiary Sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to comply with the Court’s June 17 and October 21, 2024, orders. Subsequently, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hoseini filed an Opposition on December 5, 2024, and Bohlouli replied on December 13, 2024. 

ANALYSIS

“If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.... In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Procs., § 2031.310, subd. (i).)

A.    Meet and Confer

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bohlouli brings this Motion under the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (i). While a meet and confer process is not explicitly required for this type of Motion, the Court finds that Bohlouli has demonstrated good faith efforts to informally resolve the issues prior to the filing of the Motion. (11/24/24 Cohen Decl. ¶¶ 21-22.)

B.     Compel Compliance with the Court’s October 21, 2024, Order

Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d), (g).) “If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.... In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Procs., § 2031.310, subd. (i).)

            Here, Bohlouli asserts that despite the Court’s October 21, 2024, Order compelling Plaintiff to comply with its June 17, 2024 Order, and to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Plaintiff has still failed to serve such responses or produce any additional documents. (11/24/24 Cohen Decl. ¶ 22.) Moreover, the Court’s October 21, 2024 Order imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,264.50 to be paid by Plaintiff within 20 days of the ruling; however, Bohlouli’s counsel received a notification from Bank of America on November 27, 2024 that Plaintiff’s check for the monetary sanctions had bounced due to insufficient funds to cover the check. (12/12/24 Cohen Decl. ¶ 7.)

            In his Opposition, Plaintiff claims to have provided adequate responses. (Opp’n. at p. 3.) However, Plaintiff does not specify when these “verified, code-compliant responses,” as directed in the Court’s October 21, 2024, Order, were allegedly produced. Nor does Plaintiff provide any evidence of additional production of documents following the Court’s October 21, 2024, Order. Instead, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Opposition attempts to reargue the merits already addressed in the October 21, 2024, Order, rendering it nonresponsive to the issues raised in the instant Motion.

The Court concludes that Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bohlouli has sufficiently demonstrated that Plaintiff misused the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)    

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to compel Plaintiff Hoseini’s compliance with the Court’s October 21, 2024, Order. Specifically, Plaintiff Hoseini is ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses to Defendant Bohlouli’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, without objection, within 10 days. Plaintiff Hoseini shall pay $1,264.50 as directed in the October 21, 2024, Order to Defendant Bohlouli’s counsel of record.

C.    Monetary Sanctions

Monetary sanctions may be imposed “ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct…unless [the Court] finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) 

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bohlouli seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,230.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this motion. (Mot. at p. 9.)

The Courts finds monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Hoseini are justified to cover the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs associated with the instant Motion.

            Utilizing the lodestar approach, the Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $2,908.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $400.00 for seven hours of work reasonably spent, plus a $108.00 filing fee. (11/24/24 Cohen Decl. ¶ 23.)

            Accordingly, Bohlouli’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

D.    Terminating, Issue, and/or Evidentiary Sanctions

As to evidence sanctions, subdivision (c) of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides: “The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.”

In more extreme cases, “[t]he court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: [¶] (1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. [¶] (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed. [¶] (3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. [¶] (4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate.  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)  Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.”  (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)  “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure [citations], a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.”  (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605.)

Here, Bohlouli requests the Court impose a terminating sanction of Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Court’s June 17 and October 21, 2024, Orders. (Mot. at p. 6.) Bohlouli further claims, by way of example, that the Court can impose evidence sanctions excluding all evidence and testimony regarding Plaintiff’s alleged Joint Venture Agreement.  (Ibid.)

While Plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery orders raises serious concerns, the Court finds that the record does not establish that less severe alternatives would be inadequate or ineffective. Consequently, the imposition of a terminating sanction is unwarranted at this time, as such a remedy is reserved for the most egregious circumstances. (See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 488, disapproved on another ground, [“The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment”]; see also, Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279–280 [“A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.”])

Additionally, Bohlouli requests unspecified issue sanctions, suggesting that the forgery of the alleged Joint Venture Agreement should be deemed as established. (Mot. at pp. 7-8.)

Under the heading “Good Cause Existed for the Discovery,” Bohlouli contends that Plaintiff produced a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement with a signature page that differs from the version attached to Plaintiff’s FAC. (Mot. at p. 8.) Bohlouli argues that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order has prejudiced his ability to obtain the discovery necessary to prove a defense that the alleged Joint Venture Agreement is forged and was never signed.  (Mot. at p. 7.) Furthermore, Bohlouli cites text messages previously produced by Plaintiff, which allegedly show Plaintiff instructing his prior counsel to “make revisions to the Joint Venture Agreement, including changing the page numbering[.]” (Mot. at p. 8.)

            The Court acknowledges the discrepancies between two copies of the Joint Venture Agreement. However, the Court is not persuaded that the text messages relied upon by Bohlouli sufficiently establish forgery. The cited text messages appear to address inconsistencies in pagination related to the attachment to the FAC, rather than changes to the substantive contents of the document. Moreover, the produced text messages lack full context, as several portions of the conversation have been redacted. (See Cohen Decl. Ex. “5(b).”)

As a result, the Court finds that while discrepancies exist, and issue sanctions deeming forgery as established are not warranted based on the current record. Therefore, the Court declines to impose the extraordinary remedy of issue sanctions at this time.

            Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion as to the Request for Terminating, Evidence, and/or Issue Sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aiden Bohlouli’s Motion for an Order Imposing Terminating, Issue and/or Evidentiary Sanctions against Plaintiff James Hoseini is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff James Hoseini is ordered to comply with the Court’s October 21, 2024, Order. Specifically, Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aiden Bohlouli’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, and to pay $1,264.50 to Aiden Bohlouli’s counsel of record within 10 days of this order.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aiden Bohlouli’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff James Hoseini is ordered to pay $2,908.00 in sanctions to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Aiden Bohlouli’s counsel.

Moving party to give notice.