Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21BBCV00149, Date: 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00149    Hearing Date: March 3, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

ALLEGATIONS: 

Plaintiff Cadelrock Joint Venture, LP (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Ajax Quality Linen Uniform, Inc., Vahe Azoian, Varoojan Azojan, Albert Voskansan, and Bogos Karapetian (collectively “Defendants”) on February 19, 2021. Plaintiff’s suit arises out of an alleged nonpayment of a business loan. The Complaint contains causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) promissory estoppel, and (4) judicial foreclosure.

Default Judgment was entered by the court on December 29, 2021 in the amount of $33,548.19.

HISTORY: 

Plaintiff filed this motion to compel production of documents on January 5, 2023. No opposition was filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves to compel the production of documents pursuant to a Request for Document served on Defendants on October 20, 2022. Plaintiff states responses were due November 24, 2022 and they have received none to date. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $507.50.

ANALYSIS: 

While ordinarily the Plaintiff would be entitled to bring this motion pursuant to CCP §2031.260(a), it appears to the Court that all defendants are in default.   Neither the moving party’s motion nor declaration sets forth why a production of documents that were due November 24, 2022 a month before default should be compelled given the default judgment.   While it is true that CCP 708.030 permits post judgment discovery, the discovery for which sanctions are sought were for a pre-judgment demand. . (See Moorer v. Noble L.A. Events, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 736, 743.)

In California, entry of default completely cuts off a party’s right to appear in the action (e.g., take discovery, file motions other than a motion for relief from default or contest the material allegations of the complaint for purposes of the action). (See Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-86.)  Plaintiff should proceed with the default prove up via testimony or CCP 585 and/or proceed with a new discovery request post-judgment under CCP 708.030(b).

CONCLUSION:

All defendants being in default, the motion to compel production of documents is moot.   The motion for sanctions is denied, as no showing as to why this motion was necessary given the default was set forth in the moving party’s declaration.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Cadlerock Joint Venture, LP’s Motion to Compel production of documents came on regularly for hearing on March 3, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS MOOT. 

SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  March 3, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles