Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV17649, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 21STCV17649    Hearing Date: April 30, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Hearing Date:             April 30, 2024

Moving Party:             Cross-Defendant Mayer Separzadeh

Responding Party:      Cross-Complainants Shu C. Kou and Shan C. Kou

1.      Motion to Compel Response of Cross-Complainant Shan C. Kou to Requests for Production, Set One; and Requests for Sanctions for $3,310. (1983)

2.      Motion to Compel Response of Cross-Complainant Shu C. Kou to Requests for Production, Set One; and Requests for Sanctions for $3,310. (1129)

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

1.      Motion to Compel Response of Cross-Complainant Shan C. Kou to Requests for Production, Set One is GRANTED. Requests for Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $810.

2.      Motion to Compel Response of Cross-Complainant Shu C. Kou to Requests for Production, Set One is GRANTED. Requests for Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $810.

Cross-Complaints shall provide verified responses, without objection, within 20 days of the date of this order.

Cross-Complainants and their counsel of record shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,620 to counsel for Cross-Defendant, within 20 days of the date of this order.

Background

Plaintiff Fire Guard Corporation dba Builtright Engineering and Construction filed this action on May 11, 2021 against defendants Stanford and 12th Street, LP, Shu C. Kou, and Shan C. Kou, alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Open Book Account; (3) Account Stated; (4) Quantum Meruit; and (5) Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff rendered services and furnished certain materials within the last four years to Defendants at their request, pursuant to the parties’ written contract, including change orders, to be used in the construction located at 901 East 12th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021. (Compl., ¶¶ 5, 9.) Defendants allegedly breached the terms and conditions of said contract by failing to pay the agreed upon consideration. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

Defendants Shu C. Kou and Shan C. Kou filed a Cross-Complaint on July 7, 2021 against Stanford and 12th Street, LP, Mayer Separzadeh, and Shahin S. Zackary, alleging causes of action for (1) Implied Contractual Indemnity; (2) Express Contractual Indemnity; (3) Breach of Lease; (4) Breach of Guaranty; and (5) Account Stated.

On August 15, 2023, Cross-Defendant Mayer Separzadeh (“Cross-Defendant”) filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Response of Cross-Complainant Shan C. Kou to Requests for Production, Set One; and Requests for Sanctions for $3,310; and (2) Motion to Compel Response of Cross-Complainant Shu C. Kou to Requests for Production, Set One; and Requests for Sanctions for $3,310.

On March 6, 2024, Cross-Complainants Shu C. Kou and Shan C. Kou filed a consolidated opposition.

On April 23, 2024, Cross-Defendant Separzadeh filed separate replies.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to a request for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents is directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) A motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45–day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.”¿ (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿ Also, “[a] separate statement is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).) 

Courts shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Discussion

            On April 18, 2023, Cross-Defendant’s counsel served, along with other discovery, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Cross-Complainants Shu C. Kou and Shan C. Kou (“Cross-Complainants”), via electronic mail service and by fax on their attorney. (Declarations of Shab D. Kerendian ¶ 2; Ex. “A.”) Although these requests were served on Cross-Complainants’ counsel of record, Cross-Complainants have failed to provide verified responses to said discovery requests. (Kerendian Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. “B.”) As of the date of Cross-Defendant’s counsel’s declaration, no verified responses have been received. (Kerendian Decl. ¶ 8.)

Cross-Defendant requests $3,310 in monetary sanctions for each of the two motions against Cross-Complainants and their counsel of record. This represents 2 hours incurred in making the motion, 1 hour to review opposition and prepare reply, 4 hours to prepare and attend hearing (divided by three motions for), all at the hourly rate of $750, plus $60 filing fee. (Kerendian Decl. ¶ 16.)

            In a consolidated opposition, Cross-Complainants argue that nearly identical discovery has been provided to Cross-Defendant in a related action, and the imposition of sanctions are not warranted due to Cross-Complainants’ age and health problems.

            The Court finds that because verified responses have not been served in this action, the motions to compel are granted. Further, the Court finds sanctions are warranted because Cross-Complainants have failed to respond. However, the amount requested is excessive due to the simplicity of the motions at issue. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $810, representing 1 hour incurred at the hourly rate of $750, plus $60 filing fee.

            Based on the foregoing:

Motion to Compel Response of Cross-Complainant Shan C. Kou to Requests for Production, Set One is GRANTED. Requests for Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $810.  

Motion to Compel Response of Cross-Complainant Shu C. Kou to Requests for Production, Set One is GRANTED. Requests for Sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $810.

            Cross-Complaints shall provide verified responses, without objection, within 20 days of the date of this order.

            Cross-Complainants and their counsel of record shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,620 to counsel for Cross-Defendant, within 20 days of the date of this order.

It is so ordered.

Dated: April 30, 2024

_______________________

         MEL RED RECANA

                                                                                         Judge of the Superior Court