Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 19STCV36468, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

2.
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.

3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING. The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.

Case Number: 19STCV36468 Hearing Date: December 19, 2022 Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

SHAIVAL SHAH and NIRAJ SHAH

Plaintiffs,

SHYBARY GRAND, INC.; CANARY ASSET MANAGEMENT INC. dba C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE; DTLA MANAGEMENT, LLC; MAGNUM PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LLC; ERIC SHY, et al.

Defendants

Case No.: 19STCV36468

Hearing Date: December 19, 2022

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant Shybary grand, inc.’s motions to compel discovery

Procedural Background

On October 10, 2019, plaintiffs Shaival Shah (“Shaival”)[1] and Niraj Shah (“Niraj”) (jointly “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant wrongful foreclosure action.

On October 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants ShyBary Grand, Inc. (“HOA”), Canary Trust Asset Management Inc. dba C&H Trust Deed Service (“Trustee”), DTLA Management, LLC (“DTLA”), Magnum Property Investments LLC[2], and Eric Shy (“Shy”).

On July 27, 2021, the Court sustained Defendants HOA and Shy’s demurrer to the FAC and granted Defendants HOA and Shy’s motion to strike in part with leave to amend. (Order 7/27/21.)

On August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants HOA, Shy, Trustee, and DTLA. On March 4, 2022, the Court sustained Defendants HOA, Shy, Trustee, and DTLA’s demurrers to the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. (Order 3/4/22.)

On April 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) against Defendants HOA, Shy, DTLA, and Trustee. The TAC asserts eight causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract against HOA and DTLA, (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing against HOA and DTLA, (3) Promissory Estoppel against HOA and DTLA, (4) Negligence against HOA and DTLA, (5) Concealment against HOA, Shy and DTLA, (6) False Promise against HOA, Shy, and DTLA, (7) Intentional Misrepresentation against Trustee, and (8) Wrongful Foreclosure against all defendants. On November 21, 2022, the Court sustained Defendant Canary Trust Asset Management Inc. dba C&H Trust Deed Service ‘s demurrer to the TAC in its entirety without leave to amend. The Court also sustained Defendants Eric Shy, ShyBary Grand, Inc., and DTLA Management Inc’s demurrer as to the third, fifth, sixth, and eighth causes of action without leave to amend, sustained ShyBary Grand, Inc., and DTLA Management Inc’s demurrer to the first and second causes of action with leave to amend only with respect to contractual obligations to make repairs under the HOA covenants and restrictions, and overruled ShyBary Grand, Inc., and DTLA Management Inc’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action.

On August 12, 2022, Defendant HOA filed the instant six motions to compel discovery responses from Plaintiffs. On October 6, 2022, the Court consolidated the instant motions. (Minute Order 10/6/22.) On November 21, 2022, Defendant HOA filed amended motions to compel Plaintiff Shaival and Plaintiff Niraj’s discovery responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. No oppositions or replies have been filed.

Time to Respond

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260 subdivision (a), a party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days of service. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.260 subdivision (a), a party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days of service. However, these time limits are extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, fax, or electronically. (CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections including privilege or on the protection of work product. (See CCP § 2031.300(a); see also CCP § 2030.290(a).)

Here, on November 30, 2022, Defendant HOA served Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff Shaival and Plaintiff Niraj by electronic service. (Bubion Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.)[3] “Notwithstanding numerous verbal and written requests from [Defense Counsel] to counsel for the plaintiff[s], William Bowen, Esq., since about early January 2021, no responses have ever been provided to [the six discovery requests at issue].” (Bubion Decl. ¶ 4.)

In sum, Plaintiff Niraj and Plaintiff Shaival failed to timely respond to the discovery requests at issue. As Plaintiffs’ respective responses are untimely, Plaintiffs have waived all objections.

Motions to Compel

Plaintiff Shaival has failed to serve a response to Defendant HOA’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents at issue. Accordingly, Defendant ShyBary Grand, Inc.’s motions to compel Plaintiff Shaival Shah’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One are GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

Plaintiff Niraj has failed to serve a response to Defendant HOA’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents at issue. Accordingly, Defendant ShyBary Grand, Inc.’s motions to compel Plaintiff Niraj Shah’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One are GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

Plaintiff Shaival Shah is ordered to serve verified, code compliant responses to Defendant ShyBary Grand, Inc.’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff Niraj Shah is ordered to serve verified, code compliant responses to Defendant ShyBary Grand, Inc.’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Sanctions

Here, sanctions were not requested in the notice. Therefore, no sanctions can be awarded. (CCP § 2023.040, [“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.”].)

Conclusion and ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Defendant ShyBary Grand, Inc.’s motions to compel Plaintiff Shaival Shah’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One are GRANTED.

Defendant ShyBary Grand, Inc.’s motions to compel Plaintiff Niraj Shah’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Niraj Shah is ordered to serve verified, code compliant responses to Defendant ShyBary Grand, Inc.’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party, Defendant ShyBary Grand, Inc., is to give notice and file proof of service within 5 days.

DATED: December 19, 2022 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] As multiple parties have the same last name the Court refers to the parties by first name. In doing so, the Court intends no disrespect to any of the parties.

[2] On April 5, 2021, Plaintiffs dismissed Defendant Magnum Property Investments, LLC without prejudice.

[3] The six declarations in support of these six discovery motions are substantively identical with the only change being the respective attached discovery request.