Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00048756-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 07, 2024

03/08/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00048756-CU-BC-CTL SUNROAD AUTO LLC VS OEM AUTO ART INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 01/12/2024

Defendant Ryan Klotz's motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is DENIED.

Defendant moves to compel further responses to form interrogatory ('FI') no. 17.1. More specifically, Defendant takes issue with Plaintiff Sunroad Auto, LLC's answer to subdivision (b) related to its responses to requests for admission ('RFA') nos. 2, 6-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 23-24, which are all denials. Although Plaintiff originally moved to compel further responses to FI nos. 50.1 and 50.2, in his reply he withdrew the motion as to those requests.

FI no. 17.1 requests, for each response to an RFA that is not an unqualified admission, the party to 'state all facts upon which you base your response.' With respect to the challenged RFA denials, Plaintiff responded with the following narrative: The INVOICES identify KLOTZ as the party to whom the subject parts were to be delivered. In addition, KLOTZ was at all relevant times an owner of OEM. Responding Party is informed and believes OEM is the alter ego of KLOTZ. Further, KLOTZ personally ordered many of the subject parts by email, as was the Parties' custom and practice, to employees of Responding Party including, without limitation, Michael Musgrave, and personally communicated with employees of Responding Party, including, without limitation, Michael Musgrave and Jessie Molina, regarding outstanding invoice amounts owed to the Responding Party during the relevant time period.

Defendant contends this narrative is evasive, conclusory, and false. The court disagrees. Plaintiff set forth (albeit in narrative form) the facts it believes form the basis for its denials. In other words, Plaintiff has provided the facts it will seek to prove and which it believes will support the reasonableness of denying the RFAs. Plaintiff also explains that because it believes (and will prove) that OEM is an alter ego of Defendant Klotz, any reference to OEM in the RFAs is effectively synonymous with Defendant Klotz. Whether it was reasonable for Plaintiff to deny the RFAs on this basis is a question for a later date, potentially in connection with a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3076421  10