Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV15284, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 23STCV15284    Hearing Date: December 16, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiffs Andrew Donegan, Donegan Capital, LLC, and Travis Scott (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            This is a breach of contract action. On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants Samuel Luke Llaneras (“Llaneras”), Tharsys Da Silva (“Da Silva”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 100, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of good faith and fair dealing; (3) common counts; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud; (7) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (8) declaratory judgment.

            On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to RFPs and a motion to deem RFAs admitted. On October 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to FIs. All three motions (collectively, the “Motions”) are now before the Court.

DISCUSSION

A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civil Procedure “CCP”) §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  The discovering party can also make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) These requests are not automatically deemed admitted; the discovering party must make the motion. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

To establish this ground, a movant must show:

(1) Proper service (CCP §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce]); § 2033.070 [requests for admission])

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (CCP §§ 2030.260, subds. (a), (b) [interrogatories], 2031.260, subds. (a), (b) [demand to produce] 2033.250, subds. (a), (b) [requests for admission]); and

(3) No timely response. (CCP §§ 2030.290 [interrogatories], 2031.300 [demand to produce] § 2033.280, subd. (b) [requests for admission])

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; CCP § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

            The RFPs and RFAs were served via electronic service on June 10, 2024. (Mot. to Compel RFPs, DiRisio Decl. ¶ 3, Exs 1-2; Mot. to Deem RFAs Admitted, DiRisio Decl. ¶ 3, Exs 1-2.) The FIs were served via electronic service on August 19, 2024. (Mot. to Compel FIs, DiRisio Decl. ¶ 2, Exs 1-2.) The deadline to respond was 30 days after service, plus two court days for electronic service. (CCP § 1010.6 subd. (a)(3)(B)) Thus responses to the RFPs and RFAs were due on July 12, 2024 and responses to the FIs were due on September 20, 2024. As of the date of the hearing on these motions, there is no evidence before the Court that Defendants have responded to the discovery requests. Thus, the Motions are GRANTED.

Request for Sanctions

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (CCP §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to produce]; Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404 [interrogatories and demand to produce].)

The Court must award sanctions when a party’s response to request for admissions is untimely, and the discovering party makes a motion to deem the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at 635-636 [sanctions are mandatory].)

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. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party can keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses “as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part.” (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 409.)

            Plaintiff requests sanctions for the motion to compel responses to RFPs against Defendants for: “filing costs which amount to $62.25 as provided by e-filing service, attorneys fees in the amount of $1,100.00, and drafting this motion to compel. And I anticipate that I will spend an additional 3 hours for any reply brief that is required, appearance at the hearing, and to draft and submit orders on the motion, for an additional amount of $300.00.” (All Mots., DiRisio Decl., ¶ 6.) Initially, the Court notes that counsel has not directly declared his hourly rate for the work on these motions; however, he states in his declaration that the additional three hours he anticipated spending to prepare a reply brief, appear at the hearing and to draft and submit orders on the motion would result in an additional $300.00 in attorney’s fees. (Declaration of Daniel DiRisio in Support of RFP Motion, ¶8.)  This calculation would mean that his hourly billing rate is $100.  The Court finds that the 11 hours that is being sought for preparing the RFP Motion is excessive, and finds that a reasonable attorney’s fee for the preparation of that motion to be two hours at most.  Moreover, no additional amount of $300 is incurred, as there was no opposition, reply or other work is needed.  Finally, the Court only grants sanctions for filing fees in the amount charged by the Court, which is $60.  Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $ 260.

Plaintiff requests sanctions for the motion to deem RFAs admitted against Defendants for: “filing costs which amount to $62.25 as provided by e-filing service, attorneys fees in the amount of $1,100.00, and drafting this motion to compel. And I anticipate that I will spend an additional 4 hours for any reply brief that is required, appearance at the hearing, and to draft and submit orders on the motion, for an additional amount of $300.00.” (All Mots., DiRisio Decl., ¶ 6.) Again, the reasonable amount of time necessary for preparing this simple motion is at most 2 hours (setting aside the fact that counsel’s declaration states that four hours of his time should also be compensated at a total of $300, resulting in a lower hourly rate), the same issues discussed above apply to the RFA Motion.  Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $260.  

Plaintiff requests sanctions for the motion to compel responses to FIs against Defendants for: “filing costs which amount to $64.20 as provided by e-filing service, attorneys fees in the amount of $1,100.00, and drafting this motion to compel. And I anticipate that I will spend an additional 3 hours for any reply brief that is required, appearance at the hearing, and to draft and submit orders on the motion, for an additional amount of $300.00.” (All Mots., DiRisio Decl., ¶ 6.) For the same reasons listed above, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $260. 

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to RFPs, is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted is GRANTED.  The admissions are deemed ADMITTED as truth.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to FIs, is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objections within 20 days.

Defendants are ordered to pay a total amount of sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $780 within twenty days of the date of this order.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

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.

Dated this 16th day of December 2024