Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 17STLC03903, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PURSUANT TO CCP § 2030.290(B&C))

In December 2015, Plaintiff, Michael Quillen, purchased a 2009 Cadillac Escalade from Car City, Inc. (“Car City”). Later, Plaintiff found the vehicle unsafe to drive and sued Car City, American Contractors Indemnity Company (Car City’s bond company), and Chase Bank Finance. On March 16, 2021, trial was held and taken under submission. On July 1, 2021, the court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Car City and Chase Bank Finance. No judgment was entered against American Contractors Indemnity Company. Car City appealed. On June 5, 2023, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against Car City. Chase Bank Finance was not a party to the appeal. As such, no change was made to the judgment against Chase Bank Finance.

Plaintiff was unsuccessful in collecting the judgment against Chase Bank Finance and sought to levy the business of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. To that end, on December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the judgment to include JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association as the alter egos of judgment debtor Chase Bank Finance. The court denied the motion on February 27, 2024.

In response to the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment, Plaintiff propounded 17 Special Interrogatories to Chase Bank Finance. Responses were not timely provided. Objections were therefore waived.

On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories Pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(B&C). Plaintiff seeks Chase Bank Finance’s responses without objections and sanctions.

On October 9, 2024, Chase Bank Finance (hereafter, Defendant) filed an opposition and concurrently served responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories. The responses contain objections.

On October 9, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections.

Because these motions concern the same discovery dispute and raise overlapping issues, the court addresses Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s motions together.

It is undisputed Plaintiff properly served Defendant with the Special Interrogatories and Defendant failed to provide timely responses. Defendant therefore waived its right to respond with objections. The judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories to the judgment debtor, in the manner provided in Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010) of Title 4 of Part 4, requesting information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall answer the interrogatories in the manner and within the time provided by Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010) of Title 4 of Part 4. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.020, subd. (a).) Failure to timely serve responses to interrogatories waives objections to the requests.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Thereafter, Defendant served responses. Defendant contends the responses are code compliant and seeks relief from the waiver. If Defendant warrants relief, then Defendant’s belatedly served responses moot Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

A party may be relieved of the waiver if “(1) [t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with [the Discovery Act]” and “(2) [t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)(1)-(2).)¿

The Civil Discovery Act does not include a definition of “substantial compliance,” and few cases have addressed the circumstances under which a response will be deemed not in substantial compliance. (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778 (St. Mary).) Substantial compliance means actual compliance with respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute. (Id. at p. 790.) However, substantial compliance should not be understood as requiring actual compliance with every specific statutory requirement. (Ibid.)¿¿ A court may not find that only some portions of a document containing responses are code-compliant, but must instead determine whether the document as whole substantially complies. (Ibid. [this position is supported by the fact that there is an effective statutory vehicle to compel a responding party to cure unsatisfactory responses].)¿

After reviewing Defendant’s responses, the court finds the responses are not code compliant. First, and foremost, Defendant’s substantive responses are not verified. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”¿ (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Second, Defendant’s responses were incomplete and evasive. For example, in response to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3-17, Defendant asserted objections and stated the “information is available to the public at large in 10-Q filings.” (See Keshishian Decl., Ex. B.) This is not a straightforward response.

In short, Defendant does not establish it is entitled to relief.[1] Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified, objection-free responses.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the sum of $1,647 against Defendant in connection to its motion to compel. If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Given the court’s ruling, sanctions are warranted.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified, objection-free responses within 20 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions in the sum of $1,647 to Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] For this reason, the court does not address whether Defendant’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.