Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCV00486, Date: 2024-05-15 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: 23STCV00486    Hearing Date: May 15, 2024    Dept: 25

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2030.290.  Any and all objections have been waived per CCP §2030.290(a). 

Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objection within 20 days of this Court’s ruling. 

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay Counsel for Defendant sanctions in the amount of $1,635, payable within 30-days of this Court’s ruling.  The Court notes no opposition was filed.   

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff and his wife are the owners of 12799 Norris Avenue, Sylmar, CA.  Plaintiff and Defendant Nowzar Mohebbi entered into an agreement for purchase of real estate.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant Mohebbi breached the agreement by failing to close the transaction by the date certain and refusing to stipulate to the release of the Earnest Money and by failing to provide any factual/legal basis for deviating from the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement.

            The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint filed on July 28, 2023.  The FAC alleges (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) declaratory relief; and (5) accounting.  The only remaining cause of action is the breach of contract action.  The Court sustained demurrer without leave to amend as to all other causes of action on October 26, 2023.

            On November 13, 2023, Defendant Mohebbi filed an answer to the FAC and a cross-complaint.  Mohebbi’s cross-complaint alleges (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) negligent misrepresentation; and (4) declaratory relief. 

            On April 15, 2024, Defendant Mohebbi filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) from Plaintiff Gregory Todd.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  On May 3, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendant served Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff Todd on February 15, 2024.  Defendant argues no responses have been received and all objections have been waived.  Defendant asks that the Court compel initial responses without objection and to impose sanctions of $3,735 against Plaintiff based on 7 hours of work at $525 per hour, plus $60 in filing fees.

OPPOSITION

            None as of May 13, 2024. 

REPLY

            Notice of Non-Opposition filed on May 3, 2024. 

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2030.290.  Any and all objections have been waived per CCP §2030.290(a).  Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objection within 20 days of this Court’s Ruling. 

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay Defendant’s Counsel sanctions in the amount of $1,635, representing 3 hours of work on the motion and appearance for the hearing, plus $60 in filing fees, payable within 30-days of this Court’s ruling.  The Court notes no opposition was filed.