Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV01230, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01230    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

On December 11, 2023, the parties filed and the Court signed a stipulation to continue the trial to enable the parties to pursue alternative dispute resolution.  The Order continued the final status conference to November 15, 2024 and the trial to December 3, 2024, and held “All related trial dates, including discovery cut-off and expert deadlines, are likewise continued.”  Further, the Court ordered the parties “to meet and confer forthwith to schedule and complete all non-expert discovery and to prepare for the completion of expert discovery to obviate the need for a further continuance of the trial” and “no further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause.” 

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff Reubin Azari (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint against Defendants ABS Shoring, Inc. (“ABS”); AIM Development, Inc. dba Sol Construction (“AIM”); George Soleimany aka Arash Soleimany (“George”); and Sara Soleimany (“Sara”) (together, “Defendants”) alleging seven causes of action for (1) breach of oral contract; (2) common count – account stated; (3) conversion; (4) failure to pay earned wages; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; (6) failure to timely pay wages; and (7) unjust enrichment.  The third cause of action for conversion seeks punitive and exemplary damages. 

Plaintiff now moves for leave to conduct financial discovery in connection with his request for punitive and exemplary damages.  Defendants ABS and George (“Opposing Defendants”) oppose the motion and Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS

            Motion for Leave

            Plaintiff’s motion cites Civil Code sections 3294 and 3295, which govern evidence pertaining to punitive damages.  However, Plaintiff does not address the fact that non-expert discovery is already closed.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.)  In reply, Plaintiff argues (1) Plaintiff was under the impression that discovery had been continued by virtue of the Court’s December 11, 2023 Order; and (2) even if the discovery cut-off had passed, the Court has discretion to reopen discovery.  

            Discovery was continued by virtue of the Court’s December 11, 2023 Order, and the new cut-off date was thirty days prior to the continued trial date of December 3, 2024, which has now passed, as has the deadline to hear discovery motions fifteen days prior to the continued trial.

            Moreover, the Court does not find Plaintiff has provided any good cause to reopen discovery or continue the hearing.  The operative complaint requesting punitive damages has been on file since January 3, 2024, and the Court’s December 11, 2023 order warned the parties to complete all discovery “to obviate the need for a further continuance of the trial” and that there would be no further trial continuances absent a showing of sufficient good cause.  Yet, Plaintiff has provided no explanation, much less good cause for the delay in requesting financial discovery.

            Sanctions

            “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (c).)   

Opposing Defendants request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $4,020, representing 5.7 hours preparing the opposition and 1 hour appearing at the hearing, at a rate of $600 per hour.

Although the motion itself is styled as a motion for leave to conduct financial discovery, the scheduled hearing for the motion is after the already-extended discovery cut-off and in reply, Plaintiff requests that the Court “permit discovery even after the deadline” which is effectively an affirmative request “to extend or reopen discovery” for which Plaintiff has provided no good cause. 

Therefore, the Court grants in part Opposing Defendants’ request for sanctions in the amount of $1,800. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, because the discovery cut-off and the deadline to hear discovery motions have both passed, and Plaintiff has not provided good cause to reopen discovery on the eve of trial, which has already been continued, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct financial discovery. 

Further, the Court grants in part Opposing Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions, and orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,800 to Opposing Defendants, by and through counsel for Opposing Defendants, within 10 days of notice of the order.

Opposing Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  November 20, 2024                                               ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court