Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV00216, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00216    Hearing Date: March 8, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     March 9, 2023                         TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         SAMANTHA DANG v. DANIEL KLEIN; KEVIN BONN; MOLLY FAULKNER; RX INNOVATIONS, LLC dba KB ADVISORS; CANNECO CALIFORNIA LLC; and DOES 1-10.

CASE NO.:                 21GDCV00216

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSE

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Samantha Dang

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed January 18, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants Daniel Klein and Canneco California, LLC to respond to form interrogatories and requests for the production of documents.

            Plaintiff moves for an order deeming the truth of the matters asserted in her requests for admissions against compelling Defendants Daniel Klein and Canneco California, LLC, admitted.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Samantha Dang’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that she was fraudulently induced to make an investment in a cannabis investment scheme. Plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 2018, she entered into a contract with Defendant Daniel Klein (“Klein”), a co-owner of Defendant RX Innovations, LLC dba KB Advisors (“KB”), where she invested $329,206 in exchange for 35% of net profit for certain cannabis cultivation crops. Plaintiff alleges she never received the promised profits from the agreement, any documentation, photos, or inspection of the venture, or any reimbursement.

            Plaintiff filed this complaint on February 16, 2021, against Klein, Kevin Bonn (“Bonn”), Molly Faulkner (“Faulkner”), KB, and Canneco California LLC (“Canneco”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging six causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) conversion, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) negligence, (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (6) accounting.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motions for an order compelling Canneco and Klein to respond to her form interrogatories and requests for the production of documents are GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s motions for an order deeming the truth of the matters asserted in her RFAs served on Canneco and Klein admitted are GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $600 against counsel for Canneco and Klein.

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).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), provides that if a party fails to respond to a request for admission, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted”.

DISCUSSION

             Plaintiff moves to compel a discovery response and deem the truth of the matters asserted in her RFAs admitted. Plaintiff provides that she served Canneco and Klein with her form interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, and requests for admissions on November 17, 2022. (Hoang Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff provides that responses were due on or before December 20, 2022, but Canneco and Klein failed to produce a timely response. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.)

            Plaintiff has established that she served discovery requests, but Canneco and Klein failed to respond.

            Plaintiff also requests sanctions for the present motions. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), provides, in part: “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” Plaintiff’s counsel provides that he charges $300 per hour and spent 2 hours preparing each motion. (Hoang Decl. ¶ 5.)

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are granted only as to her motions to deem admitted. Plaintiff is awarded sanctions from counsel for Canneco and Klein in the sum of $600 each.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions for an order compelling Canneco and Klein to respond to her form interrogatories and requests for the production of documents are GRANTED.  Canneco and Klein are ordered to provide code compliant verified responses without objections within 20 days of notice of this ruling.

            Plaintiff’s motions for an order deeming the truth of the matters asserted in her RFAs served on Canneco and Klein admitted are GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $600 against counsel for Canneco and Klein.  This amount is to be paid within 30 days.

            Moving Party to provide notice.

Dated:   March 9, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org