Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: YC071564, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: YC071564    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          September 22, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Cross-defendant Lupe Powell

Responding Party:                  Cross-complainant John Christodoro

Motion to Compel Responses to Amended Form Interrogatories (Set One)

            The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply paper.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED.

Cross-complainant John Christodoro is ordered to respond to cross-defendant Lupe Powell’s Amended Form Interrogatories (Set One) within ten days.

The court orders that cross-complainant John Christodoro and his attorney of record Bobbi Samini pay to cross-defendant Lupe Powell monetary sanctions in the amount of $560, within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

 On September 8, 2016, Attessa Properties CA LLC filed a complaint against Lucie Idleman to quiet title.

On September 14, 2016, Luce Idleman filed a cross-complaint.

On October 11, 2016, Idleman filed a FACC.

            On April 10, 2017, John Christodoro filed a cross-complaint for resulting trust, constructive trust, money had and received, declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, common counts, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, NIED, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting.

            On November 1, 2018, proposed attorney for Jason M. Rund Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee filed a notice of removal of action to bankruptcy court in re Lucie Idleman’s bankruptcy petition.

            On January 27, 2022, the court granted cross-defendant Palos Verdes Realty, Inc.’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories against cross-complainant John Christodoro.

            On March 16, 2022, cross-defendants Palos Verdes Realty, Peninsula Escrow, Kevin Kraft, and Graciela Avila filed a notice of remand to state court, stating that the matter was remanded on August 13, 2019.  The remand stated that based on the stipulation for entry of judgment, title to the residential real properly at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, is quieted in the names and in favor of Attessa Properties CA LLC and Jonathan Christodoro and against debtor Lucie Idleman.  The remaining claims in the herein case were remanded for resolution.

            On September 2, 2022, the court deemed moot cross-defendant’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set three and ordered sanctions in the amount of $1,810.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  CCP §2030.290(b).  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906. 

DISCUSSION

Cross-defendant Lupe Powell requests that the court compel cross-complainant John Christodoro to serve responses to her Amended Form Interrogatories (Set One), served on April 28, 2022.  Responses were due on May 31, 2022.  On June 4, 2022, Powell’s counsel emailed a letter to cross-complainant’s counsel requesting the overdue responses by June 13, 2022.  Cross-defendant contends that her counsel re-sent the interrogatories to cross-complainant’s counsel on July 29, 2022, requesting responses within seven days.  As of the filing date of the motion, cross-defendant’s counsel had not received responses.

In opposition, cross-complainant contends that responses will be served prior to the date of the hearing.

As there is no evidence or representation that responses were served, the motion is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he 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. . . . 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.”  Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” 

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel 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.”  CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states:  “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” 

Cross-defendant Powell requests sanctions against cross-complainant Christodoro and/or his counsel of record in the amount of $2,060.  The court finds that sanctions are warranted in the amount of $560 ($500/hr. x 1 hr., $60 filing fees), which is a reasonable amount to be imposed against cross-complainant and his attorney of record.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of ruling.