Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01066, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV01066 Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 Dept: X
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: January
10, 2024 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: TINA LIN, v. JAMES
LESTER SAUNDERS, an individual, LINLIN LIU, an individual, RAINBAO DUMPLINGS,
INC., a California Corporation; RAINBOW FOODS, a business entity form unknown;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 23AHCV01066
MOTION
TO COMPEL
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Tina Lin
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants
James Lester Saunders and Linlin Liu
SERVICE: Filed October 5, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed December 27, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves to compel a
response to her form interrogatories and requests for the production of
documents.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Tina Lin’s
(“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendants made false statements to induce Plaintiff
to make a $150,000 investment and failed to repay Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed
this complaint on May 5, 2023, alleging seven causes of action for (1) breach
of contract, (2) money had and received, (3) fraud – intentional
misrepresentation, (4) negligent
misrepresentation, (5) rescission based upon fraud, (6) breach of fiduciary
duty, and (7) accounting.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s motions to compel are
DENIED.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanction is granted in the amount of $500.
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
Plaintiff moves to compel a response to her
form interrogatories and requests for the production of documents. Plaintiff
provides that she served her form interrogatories on Defendants Linlin Liu and
James Lester Saunders on July 3, 2023, and her requests for the production of
documents on July 7, 2023. (Alkana Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff provides that she has not received any response to
her discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 3.) In opposition Defendants provide that
they served verified responses after retaining counsel. However, Defendants do
not provide when they served their responses, nor do they provide a declaration
supporting their stating. Nonetheless, it appears that Plaintiff’s present
motions are mooted by Defendants’ responses. Plaintiff’s motions to compel are
denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the
amount of $500.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motions to compel are
DENIED.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanction is granted in the amount of $500.
Moving
party to provide notice.
Dated: January 10,
2024 ___________________________________
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. alhdeptx@lacourt.org