Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV00949, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV00949 Hearing Date: September 20, 2022 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: September 20, 2022 TRIAL
DATE: March 21, 2023
CASE: PASADENA POST NO. 13, DEPARTMENT OF
CALIFORNIA, THE AMERICAN LEGION, a California non-profit corporation, v. THE
LEGION CORPORATION OF PASADENA, a California non-profit corporation; MICHAEL
SEATON, an individual, LYNN GARCIA, an individual; JOHN MCGUIRE, an individual;
TONY MARTINEZ, an individual; GEORGE CURTIS, an individual; EUGENE SACCO, an
individual; THE SACCO GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability corporation;
THE SACCO GROUP, LLC, dba SURETY SOLUTIONS, TOO TIRED TO COOK, LEGION CLUB OF
PASADENA, and MICRO PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 21GDCV00949
MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Pasadena Post No.
13
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant the Sacco Group, LLC
SERVICE: Filed
August 17, 2022
OPPOSITION: Filed
September 7, 2022
REPLY: Filed September 13, 2022
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves for an
order compelling Defendant the Sacco Group, LLC to provide further responses to
its requests for admissions and form interrogatories.
BACKGROUND
This complaint arises
out of a dispute where Plaintiff Pasadena Post No. 13, Department of
California, the American Legion’s (“Plaintiff” or “Pasadena Post 13”) claims it
is the proper corporate identity for the originally incorporated Pasadena Post
13 corporation and thus the proper owner of properties in dispute.
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on
August 16, 2021, against Defendants the Legion Corp, Michael Seaton (“Seaton”),
Lynne Garcia (“Garcia”), John McGuire (“McGuire”), Tony Martinez (“Martinez”),
George Curtis (“Curtis”) Eugene Sacco (“Sacco”), the Sacco Group, LLC (“Sacco
Group”), and the Sacco Group, LLC dba Surety Solutions, Too Tired to Cook,
Legion Club of Pasadena, and Micro Project Management Company (“Sacco Group”)
alleging five causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) breach of
fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5)
conversion.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further responses is granted in part.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses is granted as to RFA numbers 35, 52, and 54. 59 and 60.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses is granted as to Form Interrogatories number 3.6, 3.7, and 12.2.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses is denied as to form interrogatory number 17.1.
All
requests for sanctions are denied.
LEGAL STANDARD
On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may
move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ.
Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and
request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of
this motion 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
requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the
requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests
for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
Requests for Admissions
Plaintiff moves for an order
compelling Defendant to provide further responses to RFA numbers 35, 52, 54, 59
and 60.
RFA No. 35:
“The law firm of HAHN AND HAHN has represented THE LEGION CORP, for the
calendar years 2020 and 2021.”
RFA No. 52:
“THE LEGION CLUB is a business entity solely under the management and control
of EUGENE SACCO.”
RFA No. 54:
“THE MICRO PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPANY is a business
entity solely under the management and control of EUGENE
SACCO.”
RFA No. 59: “THE SACCO GROUP, LLC
doing business as Defendants SURETY SOLUTIONS, TOO TIRED TO COOK, LEGION CLUB
OF PASADENA, and MICRO PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPANY.
RFA No. 60: “MICRO PROJECT
MANAGEMENT COMPANY has served as director and Chief Financial Officer of THE
LEGION CORP.”
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses to its request for admission is granted. The Sacco Group, LLC is
ordered to provide further responses to RFA numbers 35, 52, 54, 59 and 60.
Form Interrogatories
Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide further
responses to form interrogatories numbers 3.6., 3.7, 12.2, and 17.1.
Form Interrogatory No. 3.6: “Have you done business under a
fictitious name during the past 10 years? If so, for each fictitious name
state: (a) the name; (b) the dates each was used; (c) the state and county of
each fictitious name filing; and (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of
business.”
Form
Interrogatory No. 3.7: “Within the past five years has any public entity
registered or licensed your business? If so, for each license or registration:
(a) identify the license or registration; (b) state the name of the public
entity; and (c) state the dates of issuance and expiration.”
Form Interrogatory
No. 12.2: “Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual
concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name,
ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of
the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON
who conducted the interview.”
Form
Interrogatory No. 17.1: “Is your response to each request for admission served
with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response
that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b)
state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names,
ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those
facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support
your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON
who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”
As to form
interrogatory number 17.1, Plaintiff asserts that the Sacco Group, LLC failed
to provide additional information as to RFA numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, and 60. The Sacco Group, LLC argues that it is
unable to respond to form interrogatory number 17.1 as to each of the RFA that
it denied.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further responses as to Form Interrogatory number 17.1 must
fail. Plaintiff fails to provide any basis or explanation for demanding further
discovery responses from the Sacco Group for each RFA. For example, Plaintiff’s
first RFA requests Defendant to admit or deny: PASADENA POST 13 changed its name to THE
LEGION CORP. in 1957. Another example, RFA number 21 provides: On or about July
17, 1922, PASADENA POST 13 filed a “Certificate of Increase of Number of Directors”
with the California Secretary of State which, by vote of the membership of
PASADENA POST 13, increased the Board of Directors number from twelve to
thirteen.
Some of Plaintiff’s RFA, and thus
also the information Plaintiff seeks through Form Interrogatory number 17.1,
seek information decades before the Sacco Group, LLC was purportedly formed.
Plaintiff’s requests are clearly burdensome.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses is granted as to Form Interrogatories number 3.6, 3.7, and 12.2.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses is denied as to form interrogatory number 17.1.
Sanctions
Both parties request sanctions
against the other party. However, both parties have demonstrated obstinance and
refusal to cooperate in the way they have engaged in the discovery process, and
it would be unjust to award sanctions. All requests for sanctions are denied.
CONCLUSION
For further
responses are ordered to be produced within 20 days of notice of this order.
All requests for sanctions are
denied.
Dated: September 20,
2022 ___________________________________
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