Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 21STCV02768, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV02768 Hearing Date: January 19, 2023 Dept: 55
LEVI
v. DAHAN 21STCV02768
Hearing Date: 1/19/23,
Dept. 55
#10: MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ELIRAN LEVI’S
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST ELIRAN LEVI IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,250.00.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
Defendant ISRAEL DAHAN.
RP:
Plaintiff ELIRAN LEVI.
Summary
On 1/22/21, plaintiffs ELIRAN LEVI, et al., filed a
Complaint.
On 8/10/21, plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint, alleging that they entered into a contract with defendants to invest
in construction and development of a real property, and provided money to defendants
to be used for expenses, but defendants did not give plaintiffs their fair
share of proceeds from selling the property.
The causes of action are:
1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
2. BREACH OF THE COVENANT
OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;
3. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
DUTY;
4. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD;
5. CONVERSION;
6. UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
On 1/20/22, a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint,
filed by 2695 HIDDEN VALLEY LLC, BUILDERS GREEN REMODELING, INC., was sustained
without leave to amend.
Moving
party requests an order Plaintiff’s further responses to admissions requests,
and awarding $4,250.00 sanctions, on grounds including the following:
·
In each objection, Responding Party
evasively states a boilerplate objection, or states that the Responding Party
is unable to respond without providing any reason why.
·
Plaintiff failed to acknowledge receipt of
the Meet and Confer letter.
·
Sanctions are appropriate.
RP
Positions
Opposing party advocates denying the motion, for
reasons including the following:
·
Defendant's motions, set for hearing on
different dates, are moot. Plaintiff served further verified responses to the
entire set of discovery at issue. The original responses no longer form any basis
for the motions. Plaintiff produced further responses to all written discovery
requests, and produced over 1520 pages of documents.
·
Plaintiff never received a copy of the
alleged meet and confer letter as stated by defendants on July 29, 2022 nor on
August 8, 2022.
·
Imposition of sanctions under the
circumstances is not appropriate. Defendants should not be awarded for
dishonesty and trickery in discovery.
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is ordered off calendar, in light of
supplemental responses subsequently served.
Where respondents served discovery responses after
parties have filed motions to compel responses, courts have broad discretion as
to ruling, including ordering the motion off calendar while requiring the
propounding party to file a motion to compel further responses with an updated
separate statement based on the recent responses. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., v.
Klugman (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.
*IF BOTH PARTIES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE, PLEASE CALL
THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*