Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV31992, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31992 Hearing Date: May 21, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On August 30, 2021, Plaintiffs Lisa Miner and Daryl Wallace filed this action against Defendants Travel Plaza Inn, LLC, Travel Plaza Inn, Jashvanti Patel, Francis Panalba, RJ Desai, and Does 1-20 for battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, private nuisance, public nuisance, and breach of contract.
On November 30, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendants Om Shree Ganesha LLC as Doe 1, Kirankumar Patel as Doe 2, and the Patel Family Trust as Doe 3.
On February 15, 2024, Defendants and Cross-Complainants Travel Plaza Inn, LLC, also erroneously sued as Travel Plaza Inn, and Jashvanti Patel filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Bhavesh Ahir and Roes 1-20 for breach of written contract, indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On June 4, 2024, the Court dismissed the cross-complaint without prejudice at the request of Defendants and Cross-Complainants Travel Plaza Inn, LLC and Jashvanti Patel.
On March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Bhavesh Ahir, an individual, who owns, operates, and manages the TRAVEL PLAZA INN, a business form unknown, located at 1116 S Long Beach Blvd, Compton, CA 90221, as Doe 4. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Bhavesh Ahir as Doe 5.
On April 3, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendants Francis Panalba, RJ Desai, and Bhavesh Ahir, an individual, who owns, operates, and manages the Travel Plaza Inn, a business form unknown, located at 1116 S Long Beach Blvd, Compton, CA 90221 (Doe 4) without prejudice at the request of Plaintiffs’ counsel.
On June 20, 2024, Defendants Om Shree Ganesha LLC (Doe 1) and Kirankumar Patel (Doe 2) filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint.
On July 17, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant Travel Plaza Inn from Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On August 23, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendants Patel Family Trust (Doe 3) and Bhavesh Ahir (Doe 5) from Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice.
On May 13, 2025, the Court dismissed Defendants Travel Plaza Inn, LLC and Jashvanti Patel without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
Trial is scheduled for December 16, 2025.
B. These motions
On March 28, 2025, Defendant Om Shree Ganesha LLC (“Defendant”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiff Daryl Wallace’s responses to requests for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and for sanctions. (Defendant should have filed three motions, one for each type of discovery.) No opposition has been filed.
On April 9, 2025, Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza, Esq. filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Darryl Wallace. The motion was set for hearing on May 1, 2025. No opposition has been filed. The Court continued the hearing to May 21, 2025.
REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff Daryl Wallace’s responses to requests for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, and to impose sanctions.
Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza, Esq. asks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Darryl Wallace.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Inspection demand
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides in part:
“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply:
“(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.
“(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a), (b), (c).)
B. Interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides in part:
“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
“(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240.
“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
“(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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, subds. (a), (b), (c).)
C. Motion to be relieved as counsel
Code of Civil Procedure section 284 provides:
“The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination as follows:
1. “Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes;
2. “Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, provides:
“(a) Notice
“A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).
“(b) Memorandum
“Notwithstanding any other rule of court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel.
“(c) Declaration
“The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).
“(d) Service
“The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail.
“(1) If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:
“(A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or
“(B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.
“(2) If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.
“As used in this rule, ‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies.
“(e) Order
“The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)
DISCUSSION
I. Defendant’s motion to compel discovery
On October 4, 2024, Defendant served requests for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff Daryl Wallace (“Wallace”). Defendant granted Wallace extensions to respond to the discovery requests, with the last extension expiring on January 30, 2025. (See Ebel dec. ¶ 8 & exh. I.)
Defendant contends that “Wallace has not served any responses” to the discovery requests.” (Motion p. 4, emphasis omitted.) However, Defendant also asserts that “[o]n February 1, 2022 [sic], . . . [Wallace] served unverified objections” to the discovery requests. (Motion p. 5.)
Defendant has shown that Wallace failed to serve responses by the extended January 30, 2025 deadline. (See Ebel dec. ¶ 9.) As a result, assuming Wallace served objections on February 1, 2025, Wallace had already waived those objections. (See Code Civ. Proc., ¶¶ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Defendant asks the Court to impose sanctions on Wallace and his counsel. Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand for inspection].)
Wallace did not make or oppose a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or a demand for inspection. Therefore, sanctions are not available under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.
Other statutes addressing misuse of the discovery process do not, by themselves, authorize a sanctions award for these motions. In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46 (PwC), the Supreme Court observed: “It is already well-established that a court may not rely on [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2023.030 to override the limitations prescribed by any other applicable sanctions provision in the [Civil Discovery] Act. A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision. And where it invokes that authority, it is constrained by the long-settled rules generally governing the imposition of discovery sanctions under the Act.” (PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), and 2031.300, subdivision (c), limit the Court’s authority to impose sanctions when (as here) the non-moving party does not oppose a successful motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands. Because these statutes address this issue, the Court declines to invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. (See PwC, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 74-75.)
II. Motion to be relieved as counsel
Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza, Esq. asks to be relieved as counsel for Wallace. The notice of motion and motion (form MC-051) spells the client's first name "Darryl" but the complaint spells his first name "Daryl." The moving papers should use the same spelling as the complaint.
The proofs of service attached to counsel’s notice of motion and motion (form MC-051), declaration (form MC-052), and proposed order (form MC-053) show service only on Wallace. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d), requires service of the moving papers on all parties who have appeared in the action. The Court therefore denies the motion without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Om Shree Ganesha LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Daryl Wallace’s responses to requests for production of documents, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Daryl Wallace to serve verified code-compliant responses to requests for production of documents, set one, without objections by June 2, 2025 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 2, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Om Shree Ganesha LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Daryl Wallace’s responses to special interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Daryl Wallace to serve verified code-compliant responses to special interrogatories, set one, without objections by June 2, 2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant Om Shree Ganesha LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Daryl Wallace’s responses to form interrogatories, set one. The Court orders Plaintiff Daryl Wallace to serve verified code-compliant responses to form interrogatories, set one, without objections by June 2, 2025.
The Court DENIES Defendant Om Shree Ganesha LLC’s requests for sanctions.
The Court ORDERS Defendant Om Shree Ganesha LLC to pay the Los Angeles Superior Court $120.00, representing two additional filing fees.
The Court DENIES without prejudice Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza, Esq.’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Daryl Wallace.
Counsel are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Counsel are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.