Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: EC067254, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: EC067254 Hearing Date: January 23, 2023 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is a motion to compel Defendant Daniel
Bramzon to respond to judgment debtor interrogatories. The judgment stems from discovery
sanctions issued against Bramzon that he failed to pay. Bramzon was timely
provided with notice of this motion and failed to oppose it. The motion is
granted.
II. LEGAL
AUTHORITY
Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290 provides that if a party to
whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, (a) the
party waives any objection to the interrogatories and (b) the party propounding
the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the
interrogatories. It also provides that the court shall impose a monetary
sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes a motion to compel response, unless the court finds that the one
subject to sanction acted with substantial justification.
“A monetary sanction is immediately enforceable as a
judgment, unless the court rules that it is not.” Newland v. Superior Court
(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610. “[M]onetary sanction orders are enforceable
through the execution of judgment laws.” Id. at 615.
Code Civ. Proc. §708.020 provides that a judgment
creditor may propound written interrogatories on a judgment debtor in the
manner provided in Section 2030.010, and that the interrogatories may be
enforced in the same manner.
III. ANALYSIS
This lawsuit concerns allegations about concerted efforts
to defame an attorney and damage his business. Plaintiff Dennis P. Block,
individually and dba Dennis P. Block & Associates, along with other
attorneys and employees at the firm, sued Defendant Basta, Inc. and its founder
and CEO Bramzon for defamation. Plaintiffs allege that Basta/Bramzon, through a
tech-savvy client named Brett Schulte, used Twitter and Yelp to post defamatory
statements about Plaintiffs. It is also alleged that Defendants caused
Plaintiff’s business being “spam bombed,” resulting in service interruptions.
This is Plaintiff’s second attempt at this motion to
compel. On September 9, 2022, the prior motion was denied for failure to
personally serve Bramzon.
A. Evidence Supporting Motion
Neda Roshanian, counsel for Plaintiffs, offers her
declaration in support of the motion. She provides evidence of the sanctions
issued against Bramzon and his attorney Kevin Hermanson. Roshanian Declaration,
¶¶4-6 and Exhibits B-E. This is sufficient to establish that monetary sanction
orders in the amounts of $5,260 (January 28, 2022), $3,260 (January 28, 2022),
$1,460 (August 19, 2022), and $3,660 (September 16, 2022) have issued against
Bramzon. The total amount is $13,640.
Roshanian avers that Bramzon has not paid these sanction
orders and continues to owe $13,640. Id. at ¶7.
On October 19, 2022, Roshanian personally served Bramzon
with “Plaintiff’s First Set of Judgment Debtor Interrogatories Pursuant to
C.C.P. Section 708.020.” She also emailed Bramzon’s counsel stating she had
done so. Id. at 3 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2.
Bramzon has failed to provide any responses to the
interrogatories. Id. at 3.
In a follow-up declaration filed January 17, 2023,
Roshanian states in part that by email, Bramzon has stated that attorney Hermanson
was not authorized to accept service of motions on his behalf. Roshanian points
out that Hermanson filed a Notice of Limited Representation on August 26, 2022.
This Court takes judicial notice of this document in the court file. According
to the notice (paraphrased for brevity here) Hermanson will represent Bramzon
on a limited basis for the following: the September 9, 2022 hearing; any
continuance of the hearing; until submission of the order after hearing; and to
oppose Plaintiff’s motion to compel Bramzon’s first set of judgment
interrogatories. Paragraph 4 states that during the limited scope
representation documents must be served on both counsel and Bramzon directly.
Whether or not Hermanson continues to represent Bramzon
for the limited purpose of opposing Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to
these judgment interrogatories is irrelevant; Roshanian personally served
Bramzon with the motion. Hermanson was provided with notice of the motion as
well as notice of the personal service on Bramzon. Thus, sufficient notice was
provided.
B. The Motion is Granted
Plaintiff has established all necessary elements for the
granting of this motion. The judgment interrogatories, of which there are only
three, were personally served on Bramzon and notice of such service was
provided to attorney Hermanson in the event his limited representation of
Bramzon continues. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.290.
C. Request for Monetary Sanction is Granted In Part
Plaintiff requests a monetary sanction in the amount of $4,860
against Bramzon and his attorney of record Hermanson jointly and severally for
the cost of having to bring this motion. The request for a monetary sanction is
granted but only as to Bramzon as it is not clear at this juncture whether he
intends Hermanson to continue in his limited representation. The Roshanian
Declaration provides support for the sanction award. The Court finds that four
hours (rather than the eight requested) is reasonable and that an hourly rate
of $400 (rather than $600/hour) is reasonable here. A monetary sanction of
$1,600 is therefore awarded.
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendant/Judgment Debtor Bramzon is ordered to provide
verified responses without objection to “Plaintiff’s First Set of Judgment
Debtor Interrogatories to Daniel Bramzon Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 708.020”
within 10 days of notice of this order. Defendant/Judgment Debtor Bramzon is
further ordered to pay a monetary sanction of $1,600 to Plaintiff Dennis Block
within 30 days of notice of this order. Block is ordered to provide notice of
this order.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT