Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

ENCINO NEWCASTLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DEL SOL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

[AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS] Case No.: 21STCV12444

CROSS-DEFENDANT KOUROSH YAGHOOBIAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL   CROSS-COMPLAINANT DEL SOL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Cross-Defendant Kouroush Yaghoobian’s motion to compel Cross-Complainant Del Sol Property Management’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is granted.

Cross-Complainant Del Sol must serve further verified responses within 20 days after the date of this order. 

Sanctions are granted in the reduced amount of $860 and are payable within 20 days after the date of this order

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, an account, conversion and theft, and fraud. Plaintiff Encino Newcastle Homeowner’s Association (“Encino Newcastle”) hired Defendant Del Sol Property Management (“Del Sol”) as its property manager in January 2010. Del Sol is owned and operated by Defendant Sinitsin. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used their position to siphon money from Plaintiff, convert its property, enter improper contracts and agreements, and have refused to return Plaintiff’s books and records. Plaintiff also seeks specific performance and declaratory relief.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Del Sol and Sinitsin.

On April 27, 2022, Defendants Answered and filed a Cross-Complaint against Encino Newcastle, Kourosh Yaghoobian, Giv Bastanielahabadi, and Allen Tabibi.

On June 13, 2022, Cross-Defendants dismissed their cause of action for defamation.

On September 28, 2022, Cross-Complainants filed their First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”). The FACC no longer named Lara Sinitsin as a Cross-Complainant.

On June 1, 2023, Cross-Defendant Kourosh Yaghoobian filed the instant motion to compel further discovery directed at Del Sol.

DISCUSSION 

I. Motion to Compel Further Discovery

Cross-Defendant Kourosh Yaghoobian moves to compel Cross-Complainant Del Sol’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROGs”).

a. Legal Standard 

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300, the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to interrogatories when the Court finds that any of the following apply: (1) the answer to a particular interrogatory is incomplete or evasive, (2) the exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is improper or inadequate, or (3) that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b)(1).)  

Unless notice of the motion to compel a further response is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(c).)

Sanctions are mandatory against “any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(d).)

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2023.030, subd. (a).) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

b. Discussion

Yaghoobian’s counsel testifies that he originally propounded SROGs on Del Sol on December 22, 2022. (Erkat Decl., ¶2, Exh. A.) On February 21, 2023, Del Sol served its responses. (Id., ¶3, Exh. B) The parties met and conferred over the responses between March and May 2023. (Id., ¶4-5, Exh. C-D.)

SROG.

Yaghoobian moves to compel Del Sol’s further responses to SROGs on the grounds that Del Sol served evasive, nonresponsive answers to SROGs. Specifically, Yaghoobian contends that Del Sol’s responses to SROGs Nos. 2, 5, 8, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 47, 50, 62, 65, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83, 86, and 89 failed to identify any specific person and instead only offered generalized categories of persons. (Motion at pg. 5.) Also, Del Sol’s responses to SROGs Nos. 6, 15, and 90 failed to provide details pertaining to the nature of the correspondence between Yaghoobian and Del Sol. (Motion at pg. 6.) Additionally, SROGs 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90 failed to identify the requested documents by date, title, and other relevant identifying information. (Motion at pp. 6-7.)

In opposition, Del Sol argues that it properly objected to these SROGs because they are not self-contained and require Del Sol to look beyond them to understand what they mean. (Opposition at pp. 2-3.) However, this objection lacks merit.  The SROGs does not require Del Sol to look to the pleadings because the relevant language is quoted directly in the SROG. 

As to SROG Nos. 2, 5, 8, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 47, 50, 62, 65, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83, 86, and 89, these requests seek the identities of all persons who would support the contentions in Del Sol’s Cross-Complaint. To each SROG, Del Sol answered “Directors. Association Members. Sinitsin.” the Court finds that Del Sol’s responses are nonresponsive because it failed to provide the name, address, and telephone number of the persons referenced in its responses, which was required by these interrogatories. Thus, because the response does not identify the Directors and Association Members who would be able to support the allegations in the Cross-Complaint, Del Sol must provide further responses identifying the specific Directors and Association Members who could support the allegations in the Cross-Complaint. 

Next, SROG Nos. 6, 15, 90 seek Del Sol to identify the correspondence between Yaghoobian and Del Sol based on their date, title, and other relevant identifying information. Del Sol answered “Open letter dated January 27, 2019. Correspondence between Yaghoobian and Del Sol.” While the open letter is identifiable, Del Sol’s responses and opposition fail to clarify what additional correspondences are being referred to. Therefore, because of this ambiguity, Del Sol must provide further responses identifying these additional correspondences with further detail. While Del Sol seemingly argues that it would be burdensome to provide reference to the specific correspondence in its responses, Del Sol has failed to meet its burden in substantiating this burden. (See Opposition at pg. 4.) In fact, Del Sol’s opposition undermines this burden argument because it argues that further responses are not needed as Yaghoobian could discover these correspondences by way of a request for production of documents. (Ibid.)

Similarly, SROG Nos. 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 57, 60,

63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87 and 90 ask for the identification of the documents that substantiate certain allegations. Del Sol must provide further responses. 

Accordingly, the motion to compel Del Sol’s further responses to SROGs is granted. 

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory here because Del Sol unsuccessfully opposed Yaghoobian’s motions to compel further. The Court does not find that Del Sol was substantially justified in opposing the motions. However, Yaghoobian’s request for $1,300 in sanctions is excessive given that this motion is substantially similar to those filed by other Cross-Defendants. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount for 2 hours of attorney time at a rate of $400 per hour plus a $60 filing fee for a total of $800.

II. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Cross-Defendant Kouroush Yaghoobian’s motion to compel Cross-Complainant Del Sol’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED

Del Sol must serve further verified responses within 20 days after the date of this order. 

Sanctions are granted in the reduced amount of $800. Del Sol is ordered to tender payment to Yaghoobian’s counsel of record within 30 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

DATED:  January 4, 2024

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court