Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: BC587952, Date: 2024-12-10 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.

On July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs Peng Chen and Xueling Li (“Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint against United Faith Enterprise, Inc, George Tsai, and Shao Fa Chiu (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs’ complaint arises from the alleged misappropriation of funds and alleges causes of action for: (1) conversion; (2) violation of California Penal Code, Section 496; (3) constructive trust; and (4) civil conspiracy.

Cross-Complainants CBM and CBM Systems, Inc. filed a cross-complaint alleging causes of action against Cross-Defendants Ginny Lin (“Lin”) and RBB for: (1) contribution; (2) equitable indemnity; and (3) declaratory relief.

On February 16, 2024, the instant action was consolidated with Peng Chen v. CBM Investments Inc, et al., LASC Case No. BC722043.

CBM brings the instant motions to compel Lin’s responses to 1) Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and 2) Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two.

Under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2030.290, subdivision (b), when a party directs interrogatories towards a party, and that party fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The moving party need only show that the interrogatories were served on the opposing party, the time has expired to respond to the interrogatories and no responses have been served in order for the court to compel the opposing party to respond. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Here, CBM served Special Interrogatories, Set Two (“SROGs”) upon Lin on August 17, 2024. (Declaration of Tony M. Lu (“Lu Decl. re: SROGs”), ¶ 4.) Lin did not serve responses to the SROGs. (Lu Decl. re: SROGs, ¶ 5.) On September 26, 2024, CBM’s counsel followed up and reminded Lin that responses were due, but Lin still did not respond. (Lu Decl. re: SROGs, ¶¶ 6-7.) CBM now moves for an order compelling Lin to serve responses to the SROGs.

Accordingly, CBM’s motion to compel Lin’s responses to the SROGS is GRANTED. Lin is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the SROGs, without objections, within 20 days of this order.

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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.” (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Here, CBM served Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (“RFPs”) upon Lin on August 17, 2024. (Declaration of Tony M. Lu (“Lu Decl. re: RFPs”), ¶ 4.) Lin did not serve responses to the RFPs. (Lu Decl. re: RFPs, ¶ 5.) On September 26, 2024, CBM’s counsel followed up and reminded Lin that responses were due, but Lin still did not respond. (Lu Decl. re: RFPs, ¶¶ 6-7.) CBM now moves for an order compelling Lin to serve responses to the RFPs.

Accordingly, CBM’s motion to compel Lin’s responses to the RFPs is GRANTED. Lin is ordered to submit complete, Code-compliant and verified responses to the RFPs, without objections, together with all responsive documents, within 20 days of this Order.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

Here, the Court finds Lin’s failure to respond to CBM's SROGs and RFPs a misuse of the discovery process. Lin has not opposed either motion and has provided no substantial justification or other circumstances to make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Thus, the Court imposes monetary sanctions on Lin for their failure to respond to CBM’s discovery requests.

For both the Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, and the Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, CBM seeks sanctions of $1,460 each, comprised of a) 2 hours of attorney time billed at $350.00 per hour for preparation of the motion; b) 2 hours to review opposition, prepare a reply, and attend the hearing; and c) the $60.00 filing fee. (Lu Decl. re: SROGs, ¶ 8; Lu Decl. re: RFPs, ¶ 8.) The amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these boilerplate motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Further, the time billed for attending each hearing is duplicative as they will be held concurrently. The Court finds $820, based on 1 hour of attorney time total to prepare both motions and 1 hour to attend the hearing on both motions ($350 x 2.0 = $700) and the $60.00 filing fee for both motions ($120) to be reasonable.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court