Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STCV47763, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling
*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
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.
Case Number: 20STCV47763 Hearing Date: June 3, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Monday, June 3, 2024
Case Name: PENSCO TRUST COMPANY LLC FBO CAESAR BERGER IRA50%; PENSCO TRUST COMPANY LLC FBO INNA BERGER IRA50% vs FELIX BOBRITSKY, et al.
Case No.: 20STCV47763
Motion: Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s Request to Inspect Writings to Enforce Judgment (Set One), and Request for Sanctions of $2,318.91.
Moving Party: Plaintiff Pensco Trust Company LLC fbo Caesar Berger IRA 50%
Responding Party: None
Notice: NO
Defendants Felix Bobritsky and Yelena Bobritsky are ordered to serve initial responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Request to Inspect Writings to Enforce Judgment within 30 days of this Court’s ruling.
The defendants jointly and severally are further ordered to pay sanctions of $750 to the plaintiff within 30 days of the notice of this Court’s order.
SERVICE:
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO
[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO
[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO
OPPOSITION: None filed as of May 20, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of May 24, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2020, Pensco Trust Company LLC fbo Caesar Berger IRA 50% (“Plaintiff”) and Pensco Trust Company LLC fbo Inna Berger IRA 50% filed a complaint against Feliz Bobritsky, Yelena Bobritsky, Cooper Dietz, Daniala Bobritsky Shoshanah Bobritsky and Does 1 to 5 for Disobedience of Subpoenas and Court Orders as Plaintiffs are the judgment creditors of Felix and Yelena Bobritsky. (Complaint, ¶ 1.)
On September 28, 2021, default was entered against Felix Bobritsky, Yelena Bobritsky and Cooper Dietz. On October 26, 2021, default was entered against Daniala Bobritsky. Default was entered again against Defendants Felix Bobritsky, Yelena Bobritsky, Cooper Dietz, and Daniala Bobritsky on June 13, 2022.
On July 11, 2022, Shoshana Bobritsky and Does 1 to 5 were dismissed.
On January 24, 2023, this case was reclassified to Limited Jurisidction.
On March 22, 2023, Default Judgment was entered against all remaining Defendants.
On May 2, 2024, a stipulation for the appointment of Court Commissioner as Temporary Judge was signed allowing Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong to hear post judgment proceedings.
On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Plaintiff’s Request to Inspect Writings to Enforce Judgment (Set One).
No opposition has been filed.
MOVING PARTY POSITION
Plaintiff moves the Court to order Defendants Felix and Yelena Bobritsky to respond to Plaintiff’s Request to Inspect Writings to Enforce Judgment (Set One) as Plaintiff Pensco Trust Company FBO Caesar Berger served the request on Defendants Felix and Yelena and both failed to respond.
OPPOSITION
No opposition has been filed.
REPLY
No reply has been filed.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal Standard
“The judgment creditor may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made . . . if the demand requests information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, subd. (a).)
“The judgment creditor may not serve interrogatories or inspection demands pursuant to this section or Section 708.020 within 120 days after the judgment debtor has responded to the interrogatories or demands previously served pursuant to this section or Section 708.020, or within 120 days after the judgment debtor has been examined pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 708.110), and the judgment debtor is not required to respond to any discovery so served.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, subd. (b).)
“Inspection demands served pursuant to this section may be enforced to the extent practicable, in the same manner as inspection demands in a civil action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.030, subd. (c).)
Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.¿
II. Discussion
On December 11, 2013, the court in Pensco Trust Company FBO Caesar Berge IRA50%, et al. v. Felix Bobritsky; et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number #13R02212, entered judgment against Felix Bobritsky for $23,492.96 and spouse Yelena Bobritsky for $11,440.50 (Gentino Decl., ¶ 1.) The defendants disobeyed orders to appear for examination in the Santa Monica Action, resulting in bench warrants being issued against them. (Gentino Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action for statutory damages resulting from the defendants’ disobedience of subpoenas and court orders. (Gentino Decl., ¶ 5.) On March 22, 2023, this Court entered judgment against the defendants for $7,412, which remains unsatisfied. (Gentino Decl., ¶ 6.) On May 15, 2023, counsel propounded a set of Plaintiff Pensco Trust Company FBO Caesar Berger’s “Request to Inspect Writings to Enforce Judgment” on each defendant, but the defendants did not respond. (Gentino Decl., ¶ 7.)
In light of counsel’s declaration and the defendants’ failure to oppose the motion, the Court finds it proper to grant the request to compel the defendants’ initial responses to Plaintiff’s request to inspect.
Plaintiffs seek sanctions relying on Code Civ. Proc., §2030.290, subd. (c). However, this section does not apply as the subject motion concerns an inspection demand under Article 1. The court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(h) states that a misuse of the discovery process includes “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery.” “The court may impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct” under Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.
The Court finds it reasonable to impose sanctions in the amount of $750 against Defendants Felix Bobritsky and Yelena Borbritsky.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff Pensco Trust Company LLC fbo Caesar Berger IRA50%’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Request to Inspect Writings to Enforce Judgment (Set One) is GRANTED.
Defendants Felix Bobritsky and Yelena Bobritsky are ordered to serve initial responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Request to Inspect Writings to Enforce Judgment within 30 days of this Court’s ruling.
The defendants, jointly and severally, are further ordered to pay sanctions of $750 to the plaintiff within 30 days of the notice of this Court’s order.
Moving party is ordered to give notice and to attach a copy of the Court's tentative Ruling as and exhibit, which now becomes the order of the Court.