Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20GDCV00650, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00650    Hearing Date: June 22, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      June 22, 2023                                      TRIAL DATE: September 6, 2022

CASE:                         LUCKY STAR KITCHEN, INC., a California corporation, v. LI LIU an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 20GDCV00650

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Lucky Star Kitchen, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Li Liu

SERVICE:                              Filed February 8, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 17, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed March 22, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling a response to its special interrogatories and requests for the production of documents.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Lucky Star Kitchen, Inc.’s (“Lucky Star” or “Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant and Cross-Complainant Li Liu (“Liu”) misappropriated funds as Lucky Star’s Chief Financial Officer.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel a response to its special interrogatories and requests for production are DENIED as moot.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted for a total of $1,460 imposed against Defendant.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The same applies to a party that fails to respond to a request for document production. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

            On December 9, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant. Plaintiff provides it served post-judgment special interrogatories and requests to produce documents on December 21, 2022. (Zhou Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff attempted to reach out to Defendant’s counsel on January 31, 2023, and February 3, 2023, but received no response. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.)

            In opposition, Defendant concedes that her responses were untimely. (Alkana Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.) Defendant’s counsel provides that he attempted to obtain the documents from Defendant on numerous occasions. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant finally served responses on March 16, 2023. (Id. ¶ 8.) Because Defendant has served responses, Plaintiff’s motions to compel are denied as moot.

            The remaining issue is the amount of sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel provides his hourly rate is $350.00 per hour and that he worked on each motion for four hours. In addition to the $60 filing fee, Plaintiff seeks sanctions totaling $1,460 for each motion for a final total of $2,920. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions is granted at a reduced amount.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted for a total of $1,460 imposed against Defendant.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to compel a response to its special interrogatories and requests for production are DENIED as moot.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted for a total of $1,460 imposed against Defendant.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   June 22, 2023                                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court