Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV00964, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00964    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 2, 2023                                    TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         NENGDE XU, an individual, v. SUNG HO SUH, an individual, MIN YI JIANG, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 21GDCV00964

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Nengde Xu

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed January 12, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Jiang to provide a response to form interrogatories and an order deeming the truth of the matters of the requests for admissions admitted.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Nengde Xu’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendants Sung Ho Suh (‘Suh”) and Min Yu Jiang (“Jiang”) (collectively “Defendants”) failed to repay Plaintiff in the amount of $250,000. Plaintiff alleges that he loaned $200,000 to Defendants according to a promissory note entered into around January 2019 and an additional $50,000 after a verbal agreement around March 2019. Plaintiff alleges that around March 2020, Defendants provided Plaintiff with a check for $17,500, which bounced due to insufficient funds. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have not repaid the money owed.

            Plaintiff filed a complaint on July 22, 2021, alleging three causes of action for (1) breach of promissory note, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) declaratory relief.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to form interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s motion to deem the truth of the matters asserted in the requests for admissions admitted is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

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 provides that on September 26, 2022, form interrogatories and requests for admissions were served on Jiang. (Scroggins Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff provides that the deadline to respond was October 31, 2022, and Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive any responses at the time of filing this motion. (Id. ¶ 4.)

            Plaintiff has demonstrated service on Jiang of form interrogatories and requests for admissions, but Jiang failed to provide a timely response.

            Plaintiff also requests sanctions totaling $3,679.87. (Scroggins Decl. ¶ 9.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), provides a court shall impose sanctions against a party who successfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories. However, no opposition was filed to this present motion.

            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 states he charges $400.00 per hour and spent three hours on the motion to deem admitted. (Scroggins Decl. ¶¶ 5 and 7.) He also provides he incurred a $79.87 filing fee. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,279.87.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to form interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s motion to deem the truth of the matters asserted in the requests for admissions admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED against the Defendant as there is no indication that he was responsible for the lack of responses

            Moving party to provide notice.

Dated:   March 2, 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