Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV42481 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Nina D. Hunt (“Hunt”) and Defendant S&A Realty Corp. (“S&A”) (collectively, “Moving Parties”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Brian Paya (“Mr. Paya”), Bita Paya (“Ms. Paya”), and The Paya Family 2013 Revocable Trust (collectively, the “Paya Defendants”)

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1950.5; (2) statutory fraud or deceit and common law fraud; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) fraudulent concealment; (6) negligence; (7) negligence per se; (8) conversion; (9) breach of fiduciary duty; (10) breach of contract; (11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (12) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq; (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (14) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (15) unjust enrichment and restitution; (16) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (17) conspiracy to breach contract and to interfere with contractual relations.

S&A filed motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One (the “S&A RFA Motion”). Hunt filed a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One (the “Hunt RFA Motion”) and a motion to compel further responses to her Form Interrogatories, Set One (the “Hunt FROG Motion”). [1] The Motions argue that some of Mr. Paya’s responses to Moving Parties’ discovery requests are deficient. The Motions additionally seek monetary sanctions.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2030.300, on receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate; or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

Responses to interrogatories must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (a).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible. (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (b).) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (c).) If the responding party cannot furnish details, they should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) The responding party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under their control. (Id.)

Under CCP section 2033.290, subdivision (a), on receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that either of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete; or (2) an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.230, subd. (a).) As to requests for admission: (1) if only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered; and (2) if an objection is made to request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response, and if an objection is based on a claim of privilege then the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. (CCP § 2033.230, subds. (a)-(b).)

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been met.[2]

Moving Parties argue that certain RFA and FROG responses Mr. Paya submitted were incomplete and evasive. The Court agrees. An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. (CCP § 2030.010, subd. (b).) RFAs may seek admissions regarding the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. (CCP § 2033.010.) A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties. (Id.) Mr. Paya’s objections were therefore unwarranted. Furthermore, although RFA number 27 contains a typographical error and requests an admission regarding “Ms. Hung” as opposed to “Ms. Hunt,” Mr. Paya is required to answer the parts of the request that are not objectionable. (See CCP §§ 2033.220, 2033.230.)

The Court therefore GRANTS the Motions. Mr. Paya is ordered to serve supplemental responses within 20 days of this order.

Moving Parties seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,760 in connection to each Motion. (See Declaration of Tami Kay Lee (“Lee Decl.”) ¶ 9.) This amount represents: (1) four hours conferring and preparing the moving papers and an anticipated four hours preparing the reply papers and attending the hearing at a rate of $220 per hour; and (2) a $60 filing fee. (Id.) The Court exercises its discretion and awards sanctions to S&A in the reasonable amount of $500, which represents two hours drafting the S&A RFA Motion at rate of $220 per hour and $60 in filing fees. The Court awards Hunt sanctions in the reasonable amount of $1,000, which represents a total of four hours drafting the Hunt RFA and Hunt FROG Motions and $120 in filing fees. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) The Paya Defendants are ordered to pay this amount within 20 days of this order. The Paya Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] The Court’s records show that S&A filed two copies of the S&A RFA Motion rather than a motion to compel further responses to its Form Interrogatories.

[2] Moving Parties are represented by the same counsel and the underlying facts are the same for all Motions.