Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01237, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV01237 Hearing Date: January 16, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: January 16, 2024 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: BELLA DEVELOPMENT LLC, RAIN GARDEN LLC, and KIM REAL ESTATE, v. BYONG YOP JIN, HOA JIN, BY JIN, LLC.; and DOES 1-20,inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV01237
HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs Bella Development LLC, Rain Garden LLC, and Kim Real Estate’s (“Plaintiffs”) claim that Defendants Byong Yop Jin, Hoa Jin, and By Jin, LLC (“Defendants”) failed to perform under a contract for an investment plan to purchase, renovate, and sell houses. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on March 1, 2023, alleging three causes of action for (1) breach of oral contract, (2) quiet title, and (3) declaratory relief.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted for a total of $2,475.
DISCUSSION
On November 16, 2023, this court heard Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses. The court’s tentative ruling granted Plaintiff’s motions and awarded sanctions to Plaintiff. The matter was taken under submission with the parties ordered to provide supplemental declarations addressing the parties’ meet and confer efforts.
Defendants’ counsel provides that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and confer because she only referenced a few of the discovery requests at issue and prematurely terminated the conversation. (Muriella Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiff’s counsel, on the other hand, provides that Defendants’ counsel argued that they must address each discovery request at issue. (Jin Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel also provides that Defendants’ counsel raised his voice, was overly argumentative, and began to berate and insult Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff’s counsel provides that the conversation lasted for over thirty minutes. (Id. ¶ 15.)
Defendant primarily argues that Plaintiff’s motions should be denied because Plaintiff’s counsel failed to address each discovery request at issue and therefore failed to meet and confer.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” The applicable statute and best practice demonstrate that the parties should attempt to discuss as many of the issues at dispute as possible. However, underpinning this consideration is the emphasis that the parties act reasonably and with good faith.
Defendants have not demonstrated that they made reasonable and good faith efforts to informally resolve the disputes. For many of the discovery requests, Defendants provided only boilerplate objections. For example, Plaintiff’s request for production number 11 seeks “Any and all EVIDENCE to support YOUR contention that YOU did not authorize the remodel according to the plans submitted to YOU for approval.” Defendant responds by stating: “Objection. Not described with reasonable particularity. Lack of foundation.” Plaintiff’s request for admissions number 1 provides: “ADMIT YOU entered into an agreement to purchase the SUBJECT PROPERTY.” Defendant responds by stating: “Objection. Vague and ambiguous.”
Defendants’ boilerplate objections do not evince any intent to engage in the discovery process in good faith. Further, Defendants’ counsel insistence that Plaintiff’s discovery motions fail based on counsel’s failure to discuss each and every discovery request is unavailing. Although the court was not privy to the parties’ phone conversation, if Defendants’ counsel was berating and insulting Plaintiff’s counsel during the meet and confer, it would be untenable for the parties to fully discuss the discovery issues. Further, if Defendants wanted to discuss the merits of each request, they could have done so in the form of a opposition separate statement. However, the court does not see any opposition separate statements in its record.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted for a total of $2,475, for $495 for 5 hours worked.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses are GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted for a total of $2,475.
Dated: January 4, 2024 ___________________________________
Joel L. Lofton
Judge of the Superior Court