Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 22STCV02282 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV02282, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02282 Hearing Date: September 13, 2022 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Inspection Demand

Moving Party: Plaintiff Wendell Peoples (“Peoples”)

Resp. Party: None

SUBJECT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

Moving Party: Plaintiff Wendell Peoples

Resp. Party: None

Plaintiff Wendell Peoples’ Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to his Inspection Demand, Set No. 1, Inspection Demand, Set No. 2, and Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1 are GRANTED as to Defendants Excel Adjusters, Inc.; Jung Ho Park; and Stephen White dba the Law Office of Stephen White.

Plaintiff Wendell Peoples’ Requests for Monetary Sanctions are all DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff Wendell Peoples filed a complaint against Defendants Excel Adjusters, Inc.; Jung Ho Park; and Stephen White dba the Law Office of Stephen White, alleging the following causes of action:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Fraud

3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

4. Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act

5. Violation of Unfair Competition Law

6. Declaratory Relief

7. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

8. Breach of RFDCPA/ Civil Code § 1788, et seq.

On March 14, 2022, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Excel Adjusters, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Wendell Peoples alleging the following causes of action:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Account Stated

3. Fraud

On August 15, 2022, Peoples moved the Court “pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.300 to compel responses to Inspection Demand, Set No. 1, served upon Defendants Excel Adjusters, Inc., and Jung Ho Park (“Defendants”) and Inspection Demand, Set No. 2, served upon Excel Adjusters, Inc., and for an award of $1,660.00 in monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and jointly against Defendants and Excel Adjusters, Inc.’s attorney Farid Yadegar.” (MTC (ID), p. 1:23—2:2.) No opposition has been filed.

On August 15, 2022, Peoples moved the Court “pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2030.290 to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, served upon Defendants Excel Adjusters, Inc., and Jung Ho Park (“Defendants”) and for an award of $1,660.00 in monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and jointly against Defendants and Excel Adjusters, Inc.’s attorney Farid Yadegar.” (MTC (Frogs), p. 1:25—2:3.) No opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

1. Motion to Compel

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2030.270(a), 2031.260(a), 2031.270(a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2030.300(b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (CCP. § 2030.290(a).)

For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

2. Monetary Sanctions

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).)

B. Discussion

1. Motion to Compel Responses to Inspection Demands

Peoples served Inspection Demand Set. No. 1 on Defendants White, Park, and Excel Adjusters, Inc. on March 15, 2022. (Buckley Decl. (ID), Exs. 1-3.) Defendants’ responses were due on Thursday, April 14, 2022, but Peoples’ counsel did not receive any discovery responses to these requests. (Buckley Decl. (ID), Ex. 6.)

Peoples served Inspection Demand Set. No. 2 on Defendant Excel Adjusters, Inc. on April 18, 2022. (Buckley Decl. (ID), Exs. 4, 5.) Defendants’ responses were due on Wednesday, May 18, 2022, but Peoples’ counsel did not receive any discovery responses to these requests. (Buckley Decl. (ID), Ex. 6.)

Since Defendants have not responded, the Court GRANTS Peoples’ motion to compel responses to his Inspection Demand, Set No. 1 from all Defendants and his Inspection Demand, Set No. 2 from Excel Adjusters, Inc.

2. Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

Peoples served Form Interrogatories, Set. No. 1 on Defendants White, Park, and Excel Adjusters, Inc. on March 15, 2022. (Buckley Decl. (FRogs), Exs. 1-3.) Defendants’ responses were due on Thursday, April 14, 2022, but Peoples’ counsel did not receive any discovery responses to these requests. (Buckley Decl. (FRogs), Ex. 4.)

Since Defendants have not responded, the Court GRANTS Peoples’ motion to compel responses to his Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1 from all Defendants.

3. Monetary Sanctions

Peoples requests monetary sanctions of $1,660.00 for each of the two motions. According to Peoples’ attorney, “Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount $1,660.00, based on 4 hours of attorney time including 2 hours preparing the motion and supporting papers and 2 hours preparing reply and attending the hearing, plus a $60.00 filing fee.” (Buckley Declarations, ¶5.) The motions in question are form motions; the memoranda of points and authorities are each two pages long. In addition, since both motions have been scheduled for the same day, the Court does not understand why Peoples’ counsel is asking for 2 hours of attorney time to attend the hearing for each motion.

“If . . . the Court were required to award a reasonable fee when an outrageously unreasonable one has been asked for, claimants would be encouraged to make unreasonable demands, knowing that the only unfavorable consequence of such misconduct would be reduction of their fee to what they should have asked in the first place. To discourage such greed, a severer reaction is needful . . . . A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, 990; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1137; Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635.)

The Court declines Peoples’ request to impose monetary sanctions.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Wendell Peoples’ Requests for Monetary Sanctions are all DENIED.