Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV03446, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03446    Hearing Date: December 12, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS

Motion filed: 10/28/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Cyrus Jazaeri

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Michael R. Rhames

NOTICE: A notice of motion is not stated, in violation of California Rules of Court rules 3.1110 and 3.1112, and a Proof of Service is not included.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant Michael R. Rhames to produce settlement documents and issued checks related to the underlying case. In opposition, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged legal malpractice.

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff Cyrus Jazaeri (“Plaintiff” or “Jazaeri”) initiated this action. Subsequently, on May 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), rendering moot a demurrer previously filed by Defendant on January 8, 2024.

On September 11, 2024, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer and granted Defendant’s motion to strike, granting Plaintiff 30 days leave to amend the second, third, and fourth causes of action and the related prayer for relief.

On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendant and Does 1 to 25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Professional Negligence, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and (4) Fraud and Deceit.

On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Production of Settlement Documents (the “Motion”). Subsequently, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion on November 27, 2024.

            No Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

“The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

A.    Procedural Defects

Pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1112, the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: (1) A notice of hearing on the motion; (2) the motion itself; and (3) a memorandum in support of the motion[.]

“A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a).) “Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.)

Additionally, “[a] party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a).)

Here, Plaintiff’s motion paper consists solely of the following statement:

“Plaintiff comes forth pleading Court Order for Defendant’s production of every settlement document between the parties, every check issued for Legal Services, Personal Injury Damages, Reimbursement Damages as verbal requests have been denied by Atty Rhames. The settlement documents produced will prove the fraud committed by Rhames.”

(Mot. at p. 1.)

However, the Motion fails to include a proper notice of motion, a memorandum of points and authorities, or any statement of the grounds upon which it is made. Additionally, Plaintiff has not included a proof of service.

Therefore, the Motion fails to comply with the format and content requirements under California Rules of Court, rules 3.1110, 3.1112, 3.1113 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.

These procedural defects render the Motion fatally deficient, as the Court lacks sufficient information to evaluate the Motion without the required supporting papers.

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED on procedural grounds.

B.     Motion for Production of Settlement Documents

Even if the Court were to overlook the numerous procedural deficiencies on the face of the Motion and assume that Plaintiff’s Motion is brought under the authority of relevant Code of Civil Procedure sections, the Court nevertheless finds that the Motion must be denied.

A motion to compel responses to discovery requests for production of documents is governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010 et seq. Critically, such a motion is premised on the condition that “a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) (Underlines added.)

Here, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not propounded any discovery on Defendant (Niedbalski Decl. ¶ 3), arguing that the Motion is substantively defective. Plaintiff does not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Based on the above records, the Court finds that the authority under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010 et seq. is inapplicable to the present case. Plaintiff has failed to cite any valid authorities to support the Motion. Consequently, the Court cannot find a sufficient legal basis to grant the Motion.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion on this separate basis.

C.    Request for Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides, in pertinent part, “the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: (a) The court may impose a monetary sanction 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. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: ... (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. . . .” (Code Civ. Procs., § 2023.010.)

            In the Opposition, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of at least $500.00 for the costs of preparing the Opposition, arguing that the Motion is frivolous and procedurally and substantively defective. (Opp’n. at p. 5.)

            The Court finds the monetary sanctions are justified in the circumstances, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. 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 $500.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $250.00 for two hours reasonably spent. (Niedbalski Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANT Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Cyrus Jazaeri’s Motion for Production of Settlement Documents is DENIED.

Defendant Michael R. Rhames’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Cyrus Jazaeri is ordered to pay $500.00 to Defendant Michael R. Rhames’s counsel within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.