Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV03142, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV03142, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03142 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTIONS TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 7/29/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV03142 JIMMY MARTELL vs ZENESYS LOGISTICS, INC. et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant Bo Wu

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTIONS TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES AND REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED.

On April 9, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant Bo Wu with Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One. Defendant’s responses were due by May 13, 2024; however, no responses have been provided by the statutory due date.

On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant, giving him an opportunity to provide responses without objections by June 24, 2024. As of June 28, 2024, the date on which the present motions were filed, Defendant failed to provide the discovery responses at issue. Plaintiff now moves the court to compel initial responses.

Defendant filed an opposition. Defendant does not contend that discovery responses have been provided or will be provided prior to the hearing. Defendant argues that sanctions should not be imposed against Defendant’s counsel as they have tried to have Defendant participate in litigation. However, Defendant was adamant about not participating, even after being advised of the consequences for failure to participate in his native language. (Decl. of Ji). Defendant's counsel contends he has made extensive efforts to engage Wu, including communication through mail, phone calls, hiring an investigator, and even involving Wu's son to explain the importance of participating in the litigation. Despite these efforts, Wu maintains that the other defendant should be the sole party defending the action and refuses to participate. The court finds Defendant’s counsel to have acted with substantial justification, and sanctions will not be imposed against Defendant’s counsel.

The Court disagrees that sanctions should not be imposed against Defendant Wu because he is not purposefully evading the responses, does not speak English, and is an unsophisticated litigant. It is well settled that a Pro Per litigant is “to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]” [Citation.] Thus, as is the case with attorneys, [self-represented] litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. [Citations.]” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247; Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 522, 524, [“Although plaintiffs appear in this court without counsel, that does not entitle them to special treatment”]). Although Defendant Wu is not a pro per litigant as he is represented by counsel, the same reasoning applies. Just because Wu is unsophisticated, it does not entitle him to special treatment or greater consideration from the court. Moreover, Defendant has been advised of the consequence of not participating in litigation numerous times and through various means. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has been purposefully refusing to participate in litigation and evading discovery. Moreover, and in any event, sanctions are intended to compensate Plaintiff’s attorney for the time and effort expended to file the present motions to seek compliance.

Thus, Defendant is ordered to provide complete and verified discovery responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One, within 30 days of today without objections. Further, sanctions are mandatory as the Court does not find Defendant to have acted with substantial justification. Although Plaintiff requested sanctions in the amount of $1,110 per motion, due to the simplicity of the issues, the Court reduces the sanctions to $1,500 for all three motions. Consequently, the Court orders Defendant Wu to pay $1,500 in sanctions to Plaintiff within 30 days of today’s date.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.