Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 22PSCV00252, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00252, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

1. Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Motion to Compel Defendant Gary Huang’s Responses to First Set of Form Interrogatories, and Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $825; and

2. Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Motion to Compel Defendant Gary Huang’s Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, and Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $825

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to compel. Defendant Gary Huang must provide verified code-compliant responses, including responsive documents, without objection, to Plaintiff’s First Sets of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within 20 days of the Court’s order.

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1100.00. Defendant Huang must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 20 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

This is an abatement action. On March 16, 2022, plaintiff City of El Monte (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Yu Min Chen (Chen) and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for narcotics abatement, public nuisance, violation of El Monte Municipal Code, violation of Unfair Competition Law, and violation of MAUCRSA. On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed Doe amendments naming Gary Huang (Huang) and Marilyn Moda, Inc. (Marilyn Moda) as defendants.

On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Chen from this action with prejudice. On March 20, 2024, Huang answered the complaint.

On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff moved to compel responses to written discovery requests from Defendant Huang. The motions are unopposed.

When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Ibid., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “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, 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.” (Ibid., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Ibid., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction… 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.” (Ibid., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Although meeting and conferring is not required before bringing motions to compel, the Court still requests that parties meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference before bringing any motions. (Jungk Decls., ¶¶ 6-7; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404; Dept. 6 Courtroom Information.)

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Huang to provide responses to First Sets of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, which Plaintiff served on Huang on May 3, 2024. (Jungk Decls., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff indicates no responses have been received. (Jungk Decls., ¶ 8.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s motions well taken and will GRANT them. Defendant Huang must provide verified code-compliant responses, including responsive documents, without objection, to Plaintiff’s First Sets of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within 20 days of the Court’s order.

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $550.00 per motion, comprised of 1.0 hour preparing each motion and 1.0 hour for attending the hearing on each motion, for a total of 2.0 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate of $275.00, for a grand total of $1100.00. Defendant must pay said monetary sanctions to counsel for Plaintiff within 20 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Chen from this action with prejudice. On March 20, 2024, Huang answered the complaint.[1] On February 15, 2024, default was entered against Marilyn Moda. On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a default judgment package against Marilyn Moda.

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.) A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) declaration of nonmilitary status; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $6,855,274.83, including $6,782,600.00 in damages, $69,716.60 in attorney fees, and $4,958.23 in costs. The Court finds a few issues with Plaintiff’s default judgment package. First, Plaintiff did not dismiss the Doe defendants. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(7).) Second, Plaintiff did not submit an application for a separate judgment against Marilyn Moda supported by a showing of grounds for such a separate judgment. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 579.) It also appears to the Court that Huang and Marilyn Moda might be jointly liable which would prohibit the Court from entering a judgment against Marilyn Moda while Huang proceeds in this action. (Mirabile v. Smith (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 685, 688-689; see also Le Sage v. Title Guarantee & Tr. Co. (1939) 12 Cal.2d 531, 534 [trust company acting as trustee held jointly liable with promoters of fraudulent securities scheme].) There is also the issue of Chen having settled this matter separately for only $40,000. (Stipulation for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Settlement Agreement (10/10/24).)

Third, the $4,500.00 in police enforcement costs Plaintiff seeks are not recoverable as costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5.) The $4,500.00 in police enforcement costs Plaintiff seeks under the El Monte Municipal Code are actually damages, notwithstanding the language of “costs” contained in the statutory language. (See El Monte Municipal Code, §§ 1.19.020, 5.18.370.) For Plaintiff to recover these law enforcement costs, Plaintiff needed to have included them in the complaint as damages. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a) [relief granted to a plaintiff upon entry of a defendant’s default cannot exceed the amount demanded in the complaint].)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

[1] Default had been entered against Huang at one point, but Plaintiff and Huang stipulated to setting aside the entry of default. (Stipulation to Set Aside Default and Order Thereon (2/29/24).)