Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV02773, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02773, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV02773 Hearing Date: February 24, 2025 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 2/24/25 TRIAL DATE: 2/9/26

Case #23CHCV02773

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed on 10/31/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Alal, LLC dba Kei-Ai Los Angeles Healthcare Center

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Jim Rey, Blenda Rey and Attorney Edward Tim

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order imposing issue, evidentiary and monetary sanctions against Defendants/Cross-Complainants Jim Rey and Blenda Rey and their attorney Edward Yim. Specifically, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Alal, LLC dba Kei-Ai Los Angeles Healthcare Center (Kei-Ai) requests:

(1) Monetary sanctions against the Reys and their attorney, Edward Yim, in the amount of $11,600;

(2) One of the two following sanctions to remedy the Reys’ refusal to comply with the Court’s 8/30/24 and 9/3/24 order regarding Kei-Ai’s Special Interrogatories:

Evidentiary Sanction

An order precluding the Reys from submitting evidence that they witnessed, complained about and/or reported that Kei-Ai:

(a) falsified patient medical records;

(b) committed Medicare fraud;

(d) compelled Blenda Rey to work when she was unwell;

(e) violated California or federal law related to break rooms; or

(f) violated any California wage, break, or meal laws.

Issue Sanction

An order precluding the Reys from asserting their First Cross-claim for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 11025 and Second Cross-claim for Termination in Violation of Public Policy;

(3) An issue sanction precluding the Reys from asserting the affirmative defenses in their Answer to remedy the Reys’ refusal to comply with the Court’s 8/28/24 order regarding Kei-Ai’s Form Interrogatory 216.1.

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 9/14/23, Alal, LLC dba Kei-Ai Los Angeles Healthcare Center (Kei-Ai) filed its complaint against Jim Rey (Jim Rey) and Blenda Rey (Blenda Ray) (collectively, the Reys), two of Kei-Ai’s former management employees, for: (1) Breach of Duty of Loyalty, (2) Fraud, (3) Constructive Fraud, (4) Interference With Contract, (5) Conversion, (6) Unfair Competition and (7) Receipt of Stolen Property.

On 10/27/23, the Reys filed a cross-complaint and an answer which was attached to the cross-complaint and re-filed on 2/16/24. The cross-complaint alleged causes of action against Kei-Ai for: (1) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 1102.5, (2) Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, (3) Racial Retaliation in Violation of FEHA 12940(h), (4) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation and (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. After a demurrer to the 4^th and 5^th causes of action was sustained with leave to amend, the Reys filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, on 5/13/24, the Court sustained the demurrer to the 4^th and 5^th causes of action in the First Amended Cross-Complaint without leave to amend. On 6/10/24, Kei-Ai answered the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

On 11/14/23, Kei-Ai served Jim Rey and Blenda Rey, separately, with Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production. The Reys each served untimely, deficient responses on 1/17/24. (Silva Decl. ¶3). At his deposition, Jim Rey admitted that he and Blenda Rey withheld responsive documents. (Silva Decl. ¶18, Ex.13, pp.52:11-53:17).

Kei-Ai filed six motions to compel further responses to the three sets of discovery requests served on Jim Rey and Blenda Rey all of which were granted on 8/15/24, 8/29/24, 8/30/24 and 9/3/24. (See 8/15/24, 8/29/24, 8/30/24 and 9/3/24 Minute Orders). The Reys were ordered to provide further responses, produce documents and pay sanctions within 30 days of the respective orders. Id. In sum, the Reys were sanctioned a total of $5,575 with $3,075 allocated to Jim Rey and $2,500 to Blenda Rey. The Reys failed to comply with the Court’s orders in that they produced no further responses, paid no sanctions and produced no documents within the time ordered. (Silva Decl. ¶14)

On 10/11/24, Jim Reys served deficient, belated supplemental responses to the discovery requests and produced documents. (Silva Decl. ¶¶15, 17). Blenda Rey did not serve supplemental responses or produce documents and neither of the Reys paid the sanctions ordered by the Court. (Silva Decl. ¶¶15, 19).

On 10/31/24, Kei-Ai filed and served the instant motion seeking an order imposing issue, evidentiary and monetary sanctions against Defendants/Cross-Complainants Jim Rey and Blenda Rey and their attorney Edward Yim. Specifically, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Alal, LLC dba Kei-Ai Los Angeles Healthcare Center (Kei-Ai) requests:

(1) Monetary sanctions against the Reys and their attorney, Edward Yim, in the amount of $11,600;

(2) One of the two following sanctions to remedy the Reys’ refusal to comply with the Court’s 8/30/24 and 9/3/24 order regarding Kei-Ai’s Special Interrogatories:

Evidentiary Sanction

An order precluding the Reys from submitting evidence that they witnessed, complained about and/or reported that Kei-Ai:

(a) falsified patient medical records;

(b) committed Medicare fraud;

(d) compelled Blenda Rey to work when she was unwell;

(e) violated California or federal law related to break rooms; or

(f) violated any California wage, break, or meal laws.

Issue Sanction

An order precluding the Reys from asserting their First Cross-claim for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 11025 and Second Cross-claim for Termination in Violation of Public Policy;

The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 4/14/25 but was advanced to 2/24/25 pursuant to Kei-Ai’s ex parte application on 11/22/24. (See 11/22/24 Minute Order; 11/22/24 Notice of Ruling). The Reys have not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS

The Court has the authority to impose monetary sanctions on a party and/or an attorney who engages in the misuse of the discovery process. See CCP 2023.030(a). Here, the evidence shows that the Reys failed to comply with six orders (three each) of this Court regarding discovery and the paying of sanctions. The evidence also shows that the Reys’ attorney never informed them of the orders regarding the discovery motions and that the Reys had provided responsive documents to their attorney months before they were produced. (Silva Decl. ¶18, Ex.13, pp.73:17-24, 74:18-76:2, 76:8-77:9, 53:8-17, 55:22-56:21). As such, the Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted against the Reys and their attorney.

The Court also finds that based on the Reys failure to comply with the Court’s orders regarding providing further responses and producing documents, Kei-Ai is entitled to the evidentiary sanction requested which will preclude them from producing evidence at trial that they refused to produce during discovery. See CCP 2023.030(c); Juarez (2000) 81 CA4th 377, 389-390, disapproved on other grounds in Brown (2021) 11 C5th 204.

Previously, the Court ordered the Reys to respond to several special interrogatories which sought information regarding the allegations that the Reys witnessed and complained about certain legal violations by Kei-Ai. Blenda Rey has failed to provide any further responses as ordered by the Court and the further responses served by Jim Rey were untimely and still deficient. (See Silva Decl. ¶¶11, 15, Ex.8, 10).

Similarly, the Reys failure to either provide any further response or providing a deficient further response to Form Interrogatory 216.1 warrants the imposition of issue sanctions precluding them from asserting their affirmative defenses in this action. As noted above, Blenda Rey failed to provide any further response to this discovery in violation of the Court’s order and Jim Rey’s belated further response is still deficient. (See Silva Decl. ¶¶9, 15, Ex.7).

CONCLUSION

The Court awards Kei-Ai additional monetary sanctions, jointly and severally, against Jim Rey, Blenda Rey and/or their attorney Edward Yim in the amount of $4,900.00 (10 hours to prepare the motion (3 hours multiplied by $300/hour + 7 hours multiplied by $500/hour +1 hour to prepare for and appear at the hearing multiplied by $500/hour). (See Silva Decl. ¶¶20-23). The monetary sanctions are payable within 30 days.

The Court also imposes evidentiary sanctions against Jim Rey and Blenda Rey precluding them from submitting evidence that they witnessed, complained about and/or reported that Kei-Ai:

(a) falsified patient medical records;

(b) committed Medicare fraud;

(d) compelled Blenda Rey to work when she was unwell;

(e) violated California or federal law related to break rooms; or

(f) violated any California wage, break, or meal laws.

Additionally, the Court imposes issue sanctions precluding the Jim Rey and Blenda Rey from asserting the affirmative defenses in their Answer.

***The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4), Kei-Ai has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the motion. This is the third time the Court has noted such violation by Kei-Ai’s counsel. (See 8/28/24, 8/30/24 and 9/3/24 Minute Orders). Additionally, the instant motion is not text searchable and the table of contents is not bookmarked as required by the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.

***Counsel is, again, warned that failure to comply with these rules/requirements in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.