Judge David S. Cunningham, Case Number: BC591206, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Opposing Party: Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “Department”)

The Department’s motion to compel further responses to debtor interrogatories is granted.

The second amended complaint [] alleges that M&N Financing Corp. (“M&N”) and Nasiry “operated a business that purchased retail installment sales contracts [] from used car dealerships.” (Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. M&N Financing Corp. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5^th 434, 437 (“M&N”).)[1] “In deciding how much to pay for the contracts, defendants used a formula that considered the gender of the car purchaser.” (Id. at 437-438.) “[D]efendants would pay more for a contract with a male purchaser than for a contract with a female purchaser or female coborrower[.]” (Id. at 438.)

In late September 2021, following summary adjudication and judgment on the pleadings, the Court of Appeal reinstated the Department’s fifth cause of action. (See ibid.) It was the only cause of action that the Court of Appeal revived. (See ibid.; see also id. at 443-444, 446.)

On August 31, 2023, the Department dismissed the fifth cause of action without prejudice.

On September 19, 2023, Nasiry’s motion to order the Department to join him to the fifth cause of action as an indispensable party came on for hearing. The Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion. (See 9/19/23 Minute Order, p. 1.)

On November 3, 2023, the Court heard Nasiry’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court found the motion moot and/or denied it in full.

On December 1, 2023, the Court entered the final amended judgment (“FAJ”) in the Department’s favor.

On April 10, 2024, the Court denied Nasiry’s motion, and the matter is now on appeal.

Here, the Department moves to compel further responses to debtor interrogatories (set one).

The first issue is whether Nasiry’s appeal of the FAJ stays the case and bars the Court from hearing the Department’s motion. The answer depends on whether Nasiry posted an undertaking. (See Reply, p. 2 [conceding that “[a] valid undertaking does forestall debtor discovery”].) Nasiry claims he did. (See Opposition, p. 5.) The Court disagrees. As the Department points out, “Nasiry . . . conflate[s] an abstract judgment recorded by [the Deparatment] with the undertaking required to be given by [] Nasiry himself.” (Reply, p. 2 [noting that “[a]n undertaking given by a judgment debtor stays enforcement of a money judgement during an appeal . . . whereas an abstract of judgment filed by a judgment creditor merely creates a lien upon real property of the judgment debtor”], emphasis in original.)

The next issue is whether the Department’s motion should be granted. The answer is yes. The motion concerns 32 debtor interrogatories. Nasiry responded to each interrogatory with an identical, boilerplate, objections-only response. (See Department’s Separate Statement, pp. 1-206.) The objections do not go to the substance of the requests and appear to regard the indispensable-parties issue that the Court has already rejected multiple times. Further substantive responses must be provided.

To the extent Nasiry contends the requests seek privileged information, he bears the burden to file a privilege log with the further responses.

The Department’s request for a $2,325.00 monetary sanction is denied without prejudice. The request can be revisited if Nasiry fails to comply with this ruling.

[1] Nasiry is M&N’s chief executive officer. He is representing himself.

[2] Nasiry’s opposition is late (it was filed November 8^th despite being due on November 6^th), but the Court did consider it.

Opposing Party: Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “Department”)

The Department’s motion to compel further responses to debtor document requests is granted.

The Department’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied without prejudice.

On August 31, 2023, the Department dismissed the fifth cause of action without prejudice.

On November 3, 2023, the Court heard Nasiry’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court found the motion moot and/or denied it in full.

On December 1, 2023, the Court entered the final amended judgment (“FAJ”) in the Department’s favor.

On April 10, 2024, the Court denied Nasiry’s motion, and the matter is now on appeal.

Here, the Department moves to compel further responses to debtor document requests (set one).

The next issue is whether the Department’s motion should be granted. The answer is yes. The motion concerns 40 debtor document requests. Nasiry responded to each request with an identical, boilerplate, objections-only response. (See Department’s Separate Statement, pp. 1-262.) The objections do not go to the substance of the requests and appear to regard the indispensable-parties issue that the Court has already rejected multiple times. Further substantive responses must be provided.

To the extent Nasiry contends the requests seek privileged information, he bears the burden to file a privilege log with the further responses.

The Department’s requests for monetary sanctions ($2,325.00 and $1,000.00) are denied without prejudice. The requests can be revisited if Nasiry fails to comply this ruling.

[1] Nasiry is M&N’s chief executive officer. He is representing himself.

[2] Nasiry’s opposition is late (it was filed November 8^th despite being due on November 6^th), but the Court did consider it.

*********************************************************************************************************************

Opposing Party: Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “Department”)

The Department’s motion to compel further responses to debtor interrogatories is granted.

The second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleges that M&N Financing Corp. (“M&N”) and Nasiry “operated a business that purchased retail installment sales contracts [] from used car dealerships.” (Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. M&N Financing Corp. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5^th 434, 437 (“M&N”).)[1] “In deciding how much to pay for the contracts, defendants used a formula that considered the gender of the car purchaser.” (Id. at 437-438.) “[D]efendants would pay more for a contract with a male purchaser than for a contract with a female purchaser or female coborrower[.]” (Id. at 438.)

On August 31, 2023, the Department dismissed the fifth cause of action without prejudice.

On November 3, 2023, the Court heard Nasiry’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court found the motion moot and/or denied it in full.

On December 1, 2023, the Court entered the final amended judgment (“FAJ”) in the Department’s favor.

On April 10, 2024, the Court denied Nasiry’s motion, and the matter is now on appeal.

Here, the Department moves to compel further responses to debtor interrogatories (set one).

The first issue is whether Nasiry’s appeal of the FAJ stays the case and bars the Court from hearing the Department’s motion. The answer depends on whether Nasiry posted an undertaking. (See Reply, p. 2 [conceding that “[a] valid undertaking does forestall debtor discovery”].) Nasiry claims he did. (See Opposition, p. 5.) The Court disagrees. As the Department points out, “Nasiry . . . conflate[s] an abstract judgment recorded by [the Deparatment] with the undertaking required to be given by [] Nasiry himself.” (Ibid. [noting that “[a]n undertaking given by a judgment debtor stays enforcement of a money judgement during an appeal . . . whereas an abstract of judgment filed by a judgment creditor merely creates a lien upon real property of the judgment debtor”], emphasis in original.)

To the extent Nasiry contends the requests seek privileged information, he bears the burden to file a privilege log with the further responses.

The Department’s request for a $2,325.00 monetary sanction is denied without prejudice. The request can be revisited if Nasiry fails to comply with this ruling.

[1] Nasiry is M&N’s chief executive officer. He is representing himself.

[2] Nasiry’s opposition is late (it was filed November 8^th despite being due on November 6^th), but the Court did consider it.