Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01209, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01209    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Unite Welding Enterprises, Inc. (“Unite”) alleges Defendants E Roane Construction Management, Inc., Edward Dean Roane, Dillon Construction Inc., and Christopher David Dillon are officers, directors, principals, and/or agents of Defendant Dillon Roane A Joint Venture, Inc. (collectively, “Construction Defendants”).  Unite alleges that Defendant The Building Group, LLC is the owner of the real property located at 1325 West Elm Avenue, Coalinga California, 93210 (“West Elm Property”) and the property at 1950 Mercantile Lane, Coalinga, California 93210 (“Mercantile Property”). 

Unite alleges that Unite and Construction Defendants had completed several unrelated projects previously.  On June 30, 2021, Unite and Defendants entered into an oral agreement whereby Defendants promised to pay Unite for labor and materials purchased for labor, services, equipment, and materials for work on an existing structure owned by Defendants at the West Elm Property.  Unite alleges that it anticipated doing a significant amount of repair work on The Building Group, LLC’s property and that they would be paid for labor and services.  During the pendency of the West Elm project, Defendants requested that Unite provide labor, services, equipment, and materials for work at the Mercantile Property.  Unite alleges that after it completed work at the West Elm Property, it ordered materials for the Mercantile Property project, but Defendants ordered Plaintiff to cease all work on both properties.  Unite alleges that it provided invoices for Defendants in the amount of $173,524, but Defendants refused to pay for services rendered. 

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed September 13, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) common counts (open book, reasonable value, and account stated).    

On August 2, 2023, the defaults of Dillon Roane, a Joint Venture, Inc. and Dillon Construction, Inc. were entered. 

B.     Cross-Complaint

On September 21, 2023, Dillon Roane A Joint Venture, Inc., Dillon Construction Inc., Christopher David Dillon, and Edward Deane Roane filed a cross-complaint against Arabo, LLC, Agassi Halajyan, Michael Keheian, and The Building Group, LLC for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) unfair competition; (4) civil conspiracy to defraud; and (5) violation of Business & Professions Code, § 17200 et seq.

C.     Motions on Calendar

On December 18, 2023, Dillon Roane A Joint Venture Inc. (“Dillon Roane”) filed 2 motions to compel Unite’s further responses to: (1) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”) and (2) Requests for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”).   

On January 4, 2024, Unite filed opposition briefs to the motions.

On January 16, 2024, Dillon Roane filed untimely reply papers. 

DISCUSSION

A.    RPD

Dillon Roane moves to compel Unite’s further responses to RPD No. 4. 

RPD No. 4 asks Unite to produce copies of any and all licenses and/or certificates issued to Rodrigo Prieto by the Contractors State License Board during the years 2015 to 2023 (including but not limited to a c60 license).  Rodrigo Prieto is identified as the principal/agent of Unite.  Unite objected to the RPD on the grounds that it was overly broad and unduly burdensome as the RPD requests information that is outside the scope of time of the litigation.

In opposition, Unite argues that Dillon Roane failed to adequately meet and confer prior to filing the motion and that on November 3, 2023, Unite served copies of the contractor’s licenses at issue and again served contractor’s licenses and Amended Responses to the RPD on December 22, 2023.  Thus, Unite seeks sanctions against Dillon Roane for its failure to meet and confer. 

After the motion to compel further responses to the RPD was filed on December 18, 2023, Unite served amended responses on December 22, 2023.  As such, Dillon Roane’s motion is moot.  To the extent that Dillon Roane finds Unite’s amended responses to be insufficient, Dillon Roane should engage in meet and confer efforts with Unite prior to filing another motion to compel further responses. 

In the moving papers, Dillon Roane seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,986.65 against Unite.  In the opposition papers, Unite seeks $3,960 against Dillon Roane.  The Court declines to award sanctions to the parties.  Both parties could have made better efforts to meet and confer on the issues raised in this motion.  Further, Unite provided amended responses after Dillon Roane filed and served this motion.  Thus, no parties will be awarded sanctions.

B.     SROG

Dillon Roane moves to compel Unite’s further responses to SROG Nos. 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 36, and 45 arguing that Unite provided evasive answers referencing unspecified invoices and communications.  Dillon Roane moves to compel Unite’s further responses to SROG Nos. 4, 5, 11, 15, 19, 23, 32, and 44, arguing that Unite provided boilerplate objections.  Dillon Roane moves to compel Unite’s further responses to SROG Nos. 2, 38, 40, and 42, arguing Unite improperly failed to identify documents. 

            In opposition, Unite argues that interrogatories may not ask opponents to set out the legal reasons behind their contentions and that the SROGs sufficiently summarize and identify responsive documents.  Unite argues that it served amended responses to SROG Nos. 2, 38, 40, and 42 on January 3, 2024. 

            In light of the further responses served with respect to SROG Nos. 2, 38, 40, and 42, the motion to compel further responses is moot as to these SROGs only.  However, Unite has not provided supplemental responses to SROG Nos.  4, 5, 7, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26, 28, 30, 32-33, 36, 44, and 45.  The Court will consider the outstanding SROGs as grouped by Dillon Roane in its separate statement.

            SROG Nos. 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 36, and 45 seek:

·         No. 7: Identify each document/material that support Unite’s contention that one or more Defendants owes it $173,524.

·         Nos. 10, 12: Identify each document/material that evidences/supports Unite’s (10) contentions and (12) legal contentions, that Roane is personally liable for $173,524.

·         Nos. 14, 16: Identify each document/material that evidences/supports Unite’s (14) contentions and (16) legal contentions, that Dillon is personally liable for $173,524.

·         Nos. 18, 20: Identify each document/material that evidences/supports Unite’s (18) contentions and (20) legal contentions, that Dillon Construction Inc.is personally liable for $173,524.

·         Nos. 22, 24: Identify each document/material that evidences/supports Unite’s (14) contentions and (16) legal contentions, that Dillon Roane A Joint Venture, Inc. is personally liable for $173,524.

·         No. 26: Identify each document/material that evidences/supports Unite’s contentions that Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Unite for $173,524.

·         Nos. 28, 30: Identify each document/material that supports Unite’s contention that each of the Defendants are (28) agents and (30) alter egos of the other.

·         Nos. 33, 45: Identify each document/material that support Unite’s contention that it (33) was owed interest on its claim in this case at the rate of 10% per annum and (45) has a legally enforceable right to collect attorney’s fees and costs. 

·         No. 36: Identify each document/material that support Unite’s contention that it gave one or more Defendants notice of non-payment.

Unite responded to these SROGs stating: “Invoices prepared by Plaintiff and related communications between Plaintiff and the Defendants.”  If Unite is intending to rely on documents for its responses to the SROGs, it must provide a code-compliant response pursuant to CCP § 2030.230.  Section 2030.230 states:

If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.

(CCP § 2030.230.)  In a further response, Unite should refer to this section and specify the writings from which the SROG answers may be derived or ascertained.  Generally stating “invoices” and “related communications” is vague without any titles or dates.  The responses should provide specification in sufficient detail so that Dillon Roane can ascertain what documents are being relied upon in response to the SROGs.  As such, the motion is granted as to SROG Nos. 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 36, and 45.

SROG Nos. 4, 5, 11, 15, 19, 23, 32, and 44 seek:

·         Nos. 4, 5: State all (4) rights and (5) obligations of each party to the agreement. 

·         Nos. 11, 15, 19, 23: State all legal contentions that support Unite’s claim that (11) Roane, (15) Dillon Construction Inc., (19) Dillon Roane A Joint Venture, Inc.  are personally liable to Unite for $173,524.

·         Nos. 32, 44: State all legal contentions that support Unite’s claim that (32) it was owed interest on its claims in this case at the rate of 10% per annum and (44) it has a legally enforceable right to attorney fees and/or costs in this case.

Unite objected to the SROGs on the basis that they called for legal and expert opinion and usurp the province of the jury.  Dillon Roane argues that the objections are boilerplate in nature, which Unite has not justified, and that expert opinion is not being sought in these SROGs. 

Where such general “boilerplate” objections are made, this Court has the authority to order a further response.  (See Best Prods., Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189.)  Here, Unite has not substantiated or justified its objections.  In addition, CCP § 2030.010(b) provides: “An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.” 

Thus, the motion is granted as to SROG Nos. 4, 5, 11, 15, 19, 23, 32, and 44. 

Dillon Roane seeks $6,496.65 in sanctions against Unite and its counsel of record for this motion (= 10.5 hours for the motion and anticipated 45 minutes for the reply and to attend the hearing at $585/hour, plus $61.65 in filing fees).  The Court will award sanctions to Dillon Roane against Unite in the amount of $2,000 on this motion, plus $61.65 in filing fees. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Defendant Dillon Roane A Joint Venture Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Unite Welding Enterprises, Inc.’s further responses to RPD No. 4 is moot in light of Plaintiff’s amended responses.  No sanctions shall be awarded on this motion. 

Defendant Dillon Roane A Joint Venture Inc.’s motion to compel Plaintiff Unite Welding Enterprises, Inc.’s further responses to SROG Nos. 2, 38, 40, and 42is moot in light of Plaintiff’s amended responses.  The motion is granted as to SROG Nos. 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 36, and 45 and SROG Nos. 4, 5, 11, 15, 19, 23, 32, and 44.  Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,061.65 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

            Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  January 19, 2024                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court