Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC00821, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 20STLC00821    Hearing Date: August 22, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

                                    MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

MOVING PARTY:   Design Collection, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

(CCP §§ 2033.280, 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Design Collection’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $252.87 as to each Defendant.

Plaintiff Design Collection’s Motion to Compel Discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $252.87 as to each Defendant.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 [OK]

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 [OK]

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     [OK]

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of August 18, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 18, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff Design Collection, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), filed an action against Defendants Honey Punch America, Inc., dba Honey Belle (“Honey Punch”); KLK Forte Industry, Inc., dba Wild Honey (“KLK”); Honey Punch USA (“Honey USA”); Katherine Kim aka Katherine Hee Kim aka Kathy Kim aka Katherine Lee aka Hyun Hee Kim (“Katherine”) (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) breach of contracts, (2) open account, (3) account stated, (4) goods sold and delivered (quantum valebant), (5) conversion, (6) claim and delivery, (7) promise without intent to perform, (8) intentional misrepresentation, and (9) negligent misrepresentation.  On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which added business names for certain Defendants and added the following Defendants: Honey Global IP, LLC (“Honey Global”), The Honey Companies, LLC (“Honey Co.”), and Kenny In Hwang, aka Kenny Kwon Hwang, aka Kenny Hwang, dba Honey Punch, dba Honey Punch America, dba Style Melody (“Kenny”).

On November 17, 2021, Defendants Katherine and KLK filed a joint Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On January 6, 2022, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice because Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing.  (1-6-22 Minute Order.)  The dismissal was set aside on May 5, 2022, based on Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal.  (5-5-22 Minute Order.)

On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted (“Motion – RFAs”) as to Defendants Kim and KLK and a request for sanctions in the amount of $252.87 as to each Defendant.

Plaintiff also filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, (“Motion – Form Interrogatories) as to Defendants Kim and KLK on July 26, 2022, and a request for sanctions in the amount of $252.87 as to each Defendant.

No opposition was filed to Motion – RFAs or Motion – Form Interrogatories.

II.              Legal Standard and Discussion

A.    Requests for Admission

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond.  The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)  Since such motion is in response to failure to respond, there is no requirement to meet and confer prior to moving to deem the requests for admission admitted.  (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.). By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)

Here, Plaintiff served Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendants Kim and KLK, on or about June 1, 2022.  (Mot. – RFAs, p. 11, Tabibi Decl. ¶ 2; Exs. 1-2.)  According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendants did not submit any responses by the deadline of July 6, 2022, and as of the date of the instant Motion filed on July 26, 2022.  (Tabibi Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)  As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion.  (Tabibi Decl. ¶ 3.)

Since Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendants Kim and KLK have failed to respond to the Requests for Admission by the deadline, the Court deems the truth of the statements in the Request for Admissions admitted.

B.    Form Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260(a).)  If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)  Once compelled to respond, the party waives the right to make any objections, including ones based on privilege or work-product protection.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020(a), 2030.290.)  No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendants Kim and KLK, on or about June 1, 2022.  (Mot. – Form Interr., p. 10, Tabibi Decl. ¶ 2; Exs. 1-2.)  According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendants did not submit any responses by the deadline of July 6, 2022, and as of the date of the instant Motion filed on July 26, 2022.  (Tabibi Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)  As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion.  (Tabibi Decl. ¶ 3.)

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

C.    Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct.  Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Furthermore, courts are obligated to impose monetary sanctions in cases where a “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Ibid.)  Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Ibid. § 2023.030(a)).

Here, Defendants Kim and KLK have failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission.  Thus, the Court is obligated to impose monetary sanctions.  Defendants have also failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, so the Court may impose sanctions for failure to respond.

            For the Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, Plaintiff requests $252.87 as to each Defendant based on the following calculation: attorney’s fees for half an hour reviewing the file and preparing the Motion at a rate of $475 per hour, and filing fees in the sum of $61.50.  Although the Court cannot follow Plaintiff’s calculation, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request of $252.87 as to each Defendant to be reasonable.

For the Motion to Compel Discovery, Form Interrogatories, Plaintiff similarly requests $252.87 as to each Defendant based on the same calculation.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s request to be reasonable.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Plaintiff Design Collection’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $252.87 as to each Defendant.

Plaintiff Design Collection’s Motion to Compel Discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $252.87 as to each Defendant.

Moving party to give notice.