Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV45068, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV45068 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing Date: November
12, 2024
Moving Party: Plaintiffs
and Cross-Defendant Terpen Inc.
Responding Parties: Unopposed
by Defendants Arcturian Light, LLC, and Pleiadian Light, LLC
Motion to Compel Site Inspection
The court has
considered the moving papers, the motion is unopposed.
The court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel site inspection as to Defendant
Arcturian Light, LLC.
The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel site inspection as to Defendant
Pleiadian Light, LLC.
The court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant and their counsel
of record in the reduced amount of $1,547.50. The court orders Defendants and their
counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay $1,547.50 to Defendants,
through their counsel of record, within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
Background
Plaintiffs
Terpen, Inc., Jairo D. Arrieta, Joel Arrieta, and Juan Carlos Diaz filed this
action on May 6, 2021 against Defendants Memory Buss, Arcturian Light, LLC and
Pleiadian Light, LLC, alleging 21 causes of action involving securities fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and wage-and-hour claims.
Plaintiff
Terpen Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion for an order compelling response to
an inspection demand against Defendant Arcturian Light, LLC and Pleiadian Light,
LLC (“Defendants”) and request for $7,532.50 in sanctions on August 13, 2024. No
opposition was filed.
Legal Standard
Any party may obtain discovery by
inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or
other property, and electronically stored information in the possession,
custody, of control of any other party to the action.¿ (CCP § 2031.010, subd.
(a).)¿ A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party
making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to
inspect and to photograph, test, or sample any tangible things that are in the
possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.¿ (CCP
§ 2031.010, subd. (c).)¿ A party may demand that any other party allow the
party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to
enter onto any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or
control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure,
survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any
designated object or operation on it.¿ (CCP § 2031.010, subd. (d).)¿¿
Within 30 days of a demand for inspection,
the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the
response to it on the party making the demand and a copy on all other parties
who have appeared in the action.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.
(a).)¿The party to whom a demand for inspection has been directed shall respond
separately to each item or category of item with: (1) a statement that the
party will comply with the particular demand for inspection; (2) a
representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for
inspection; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection.¿ (Id.,
§ 2031.210, subd. (a).)¿¿
Discussion
Merits
of the Motion
Plaintiff’s motion indicates that on March 6 and March 23, 2020,
counsel for Plaintiff, Eugene Kim, Esq., requested via email that counsel for
Defendants preserve the video and security evidence recorded on the property,
pending litigation. (Motion, pp. 2:24-3:6; Exhibit K, Exs. 2 and 3.)
On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff Terpen Inc, served by email, a Demand
for Permission to Enter Property for Inspection, Measuring, and Photographing
of 2001 and 2003 East 14th Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90021 (the
“Demand for Inspection”), on all Defendants. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 10, 15, Exhibit J.)
This meant that Defendants’ responses were due on November 30, 2022, with an
additional five days added for certified U.S. mail pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1013.
The Demand for Inspection states the following:
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 et seq. [sic],
Claimant and Counter-Respondent Terpen Inc., demands that Respondent and
Counterclaimant Pleidian Light, LLC permit the inspection, testing,
photographing (both still photos and video graphic form), and copying, onto digital
storage media or other means, at 10:00 AM on Monday, December 12, 2022 of the DOCUMENTS,
VIDEO or VIDEO FOOTAGE, tangible things, land, or other property, listed below.
As of the date
of this demand for inspection:
1. 2001 East 14th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021 and
2003 East 14th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021 (the “Business
Properties”) and any buildings, dwellings, facilities, and equipment (Demand
for Inspection No. 1.);
2. The inside of the Business Properties related to
all operations, covering all manufacturing, distribution and cultivation of
cannabis product, cannabis accessories, cannabis goods (Demand for Inspection
No. 2.);
3. All equipment including cannabis accessories,
covering all manufacturing, distribution and cultivation of cannabis product
and cannabis goods (Demand for Inspection No. 3.);
4. All video footage of individuals entering the
Business Properties as guests (Demand for Inspection No. 6.);
5. All documents pertaining to security video footage
of the Business Properties (Demand for Inspection No. 19.);
As of the date
of this demand for inspection:
6. All documents related to security video footage of
the Business Properties (Demand for Inspection No. 37);
7. All video footage of cannabis product inventory and
cannabis accessories (Demand for Inspection No. 38);
8. All video footage of equipment used in the
manufacturing of cannabis goods, products, and accessories (Demand for
Inspection No. 39).
(Exhibit J.)
Plaintiff maintains that Defendant has not provided a response and has
not made the land or responsive documents available for inspection, copying,
testing, and/or sampling. (Motion, p. 2:14-17, Kim Decl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff
contends that the parties agreed to schedule an inspection of the premises for
January 11, 2023, and to date, no inspection has occurred. (Kim Decl., ¶ 11;
Exhibit L.)
The Court notes that the although the Demand for Inspection was served
on all Defendants, the Demand for Inspection is directed only to Defendant
Pleidian Light, LLC, and Demand for Inspection was drafted as to Defendant
Arcurian Light, LLC. (Exhibit J, p. 1:10-11.)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Demand for Inspection as to Defendant Pleidian Light, LLC, and
DENIES Demand for Inspection as to Defendant Arcurian Light, LLC, on the
grounds that no Demand for Inspection was directed on Defendant Arcurian Light,
LLC.
Request
for Monetary Sanctions
CCP § 2023.030 authorizes the Court to issue sanctions against a party
engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Failure to respond
to discovery, evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial
justification are “misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP § 2023.010, subd.
(d)-(f).)
Plaintiff has
requested sanctions in the amount of $7,532.50 against Defendants and their
counsel of record for failing to make the land and video footage at issue available
for inspection. (Kim Decl., ¶ 19.) Plaintiff seeks to recover 10.9 hours for
this motion, and $120 in filing fees. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel
declares that: (1) he spent 5.1 hours revising the motion, at his hourly rate of
$425 per hour (Kim Decl., ¶ 19(a), (e)); (2) that Nano Law’s of counsel
attorney spent 5.4 hours revising the motion at an hourly rate of $325 per hour
(Id., ¶ 19(b), (f)); and (3) that Nano Law’s paralegal has spent 0.4 hours
revising the motion at an hourly rate of $225 per hour. (Id., ¶ (d), (g).) Defense counsel anticipates incurring 8 hours in
preparing a reply to any opposition and hearing attendance. (Id., ¶ 19 (h).)
As an initial
matter, the Court notes that the motion is unopposed, and Plaintiff’s counsel
did not incur the anticipated 8 hours reviewing an opposition. Thus, the court
declines to award the $3,400.00 requested by Plaintiff’s counsel (8 hours x
$425 per hour). The Court also notes that the $120 filing fee is unspecified,
the filing fee for one motion is typically $60. Given that the subject of the
November 12, 2024 hearing is one motion, the court declines to award $120 in
filing fees. The Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable,
but the number of hours that Plaintiff seek to recover is unreasonable. The Court
does not find that the issues and work involved for this motion justify the
amount in attorney’s fees that Plaintiff’s counsel and co-counsel are seeking.
The court finds
that reducing Plaintiff’s recoverable hours to three hours for preparing the motion
and 0.5 hours for attending hearing is reasonable. Thus, Plaintiff’s total
reduced recoverable amount in attorney’s fees is $1,547.50 (3.5 hours x $425
per hour + $60 filing fee).
The court
therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant
and its counsel of record in the reduced amount of $1,547.50 in attorney’s
fees. The court orders Defendants and their counsel of record, jointly and
severally, to pay $1,547.50 to Plaintiff, through their counsel of record,
within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
It is so
ordered.
Dated:
November 12, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court