Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV07996, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV07996 Hearing Date: January 17, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion for
Order Compelling Responses to First and Second Set of Demands for Inspection
and Production of Documents and Things from Defendant James Goodman
Architecture, Etc.
Moving Party: Plaintiff
LAX Shopping, LLC
Resp. Party: None
Plaintiff’s Initial RPDs Motion Against Goodman is GRANTED.
James Goodman Architecture,
Architectural Corporation shall provide initial responses to both sets of RPDs
within twenty (20) days of the issuance of this Order.
BACKGROUND:
On April 11,
2023, LAX Shopping, LLC filed its Complaint against Damato Associates, Inc.;
James Goodman Architecture, Architectural Corporation; and Larsen Zienkiewicz,
Inc. The causes of action arise from the Parties business dealings related to
the construction of real property.
On June 21,
2023, LAX Shopping, LLC filed its First Amended Complaint (FAC).
On July 12,
2023, Damato Associates, Inc. filed its Cross-Complaint (“Damato
Cross-Complaint”) against C.R.L. Electrical Inc.; Emerald Metal Products, Inc.;
Anna Corporation; Saddleback Roofing, Inc.; and Skyline Construction &
Design Inc.
On July 12,
2023, Damato Associates, Inc. filed its Answer to the FAC.
On July 12,
2023, James Goodman Architecture, Architectural Corporation filed its
Cross-Complaint (“Goodman Cross-Complaint”) against LAX Shopping, LLC.
On July 12,
2023, James Goodman Architecture, Architectural Corporation filed its Answer to
the FAC.
On July 13,
2023, Damato Associates, Inc. refiled the Damato Cross-Complaint.
On July 21,
2023, Damato Associates, Inc. filed its Amended Answer to FAC.
On July 28,
2023, Damato Associates, Inc. amended the Damato Cross-Complaint to substitute
the names of the following roe defendants with their true names:
(1) Roe 1 with R3 Contractors, Inc.
(2) Roe 2 with California Paving & Grading
Co., Inc.
(3) Roe 3 with Total Interiors, Inc.
(4) Roe 4 with JoJo Enterprises, Inc.
(5) Roe 5 with G Brothers Construction, Inc.
(6) Roe 101 with Alliance Diversified Enterprises,
Inc.
(7) Roe 102 with Preferred Paving Company
(8) Roe 103 with GBC Concrete and Masonry
Construction
(9) Roe 104 with Bell Bros. Steel, Inc.
(10) Roe 105 with Accurate Laminated Products, Inc.
(11) Roe 106 with P.V. & C Plumbing and Piping,
Inc.
On August 7,
2023, Larsen Zienkiewicz, Inc. filed its Cross-Complaint (“Zienkiewicz
Cross-Complaint”) against LAX Shopping, LLC.
On August 7,
2023, Larsen Zienkiewicz, Inc. filed its Answer to the FAC.
On August 14,
2023, LAX Shopping, LLC filed its Answer to the Goodman Cross-Complaint.
On August 28,
2023, LAX Shopping, LLC amended its FAC to substitute Does 26, 27, 28, and 29 with
Skyline Construction & Design, Inc., Anna Corporation, Sanders &
Wohrman Corporation, and K&S Air Conditioning, Inc., respectively.
On September
6, 2023, Saddleback Roofing Inc. filed its Answer to the Damato
Cross-Complaint.
On September
8, 2023, LAX Shopping, LLC filed its Answer to the Zienkiewicz Cross-Complaint.
On September
14, 2023, C.R.L. Electrical Inc. filed its Answer to the Damato
Cross-Complaint.
On September
14, 2023, California Paving & Grading Co., Inc. (“CPGC Cross-Complaint”) filed
its Cross-Complaint only against Moes 1 through 100.
On September
14, 2023, California Paving & Grading Co., Inc. filed its Answer to the
Damato Cross-Complaint.
On September
20, 2023, Skyline Construction & Design, Inc. (“SCDI Cross-Complaint”) filed
its Cross-Complaint only against Moes 1 through 100.
On September
20, 2023, Skyline Construction & Design, Inc. filed its Answer to the
Damato Cross-Complaint.
On September
25, 2023, G Brothers Construction, Inc. filed its Cross-Complaint (“GBCI
Cross-Complaint”) only against Moes 1 through 20.
On September
25, 2023, G Brothers Construction, Inc. filed its Answer to the Damato
Cross-Complaint.
On September
25, 2023, Anna Corporation filed its Cross-Complaint (“Anna Cross-Complaint”)
only against Zoes 1 through 20.
On September
25, 2023, Anna Corporation filed its Answer to the FAC.
On September
25, 2023, Anna Corporation filed its Answer to the Damato Cross-Complaint.
On September
29, 2023 Sanders & Wohrman Corporation filed its Cross-Complaint (“SWC
Cross-Complaint”) only against Poes 1 through 50.
On October 2,
2023, Emerald Metal Products, Inc. filed its Cross-Complaint (“Emerald
Cross-Complaint”) against Damato Associates, Inc.; C.R.L. Electrical Inc.;
Emerald Metal Product, Inc.; Anna Corporation; Saddleback Roofing, Inc.;
Skyline Construction & Design Inc.; James Goodman Architecture,
Architectural Corporation; Larsen Zienkiewicz, Inc.; G Brothers Construction,
Inc.; California Paving & Grading Co., Inc.; Bell Bros. Steel Inc.; GBC
Concrete & Masonry, Inc.; Sanders & Wohrman Corporation; JoJo
Enterprises Inc.; K&S Air Conditioning Inc.; P.V. & C Plumbing and
Piping Inc.; Preferred Paving Company; R3 Contractors Inc.; and Total Interiors
Inc.
On October 2,
2023, Emerald Metal Products, Inc. filed its Answer to the Damato
Cross-Complaint.
On October 6,
2023, Skyline Construction & Design, Inc. filed its Answer to the FAC.
On October 6,
2023, Bell Bros Steel, Inc. filed its Cross-Complaint (“Bell Cross-Complaint”)
only against Roes 1 through 25.
On October 6,
2023, Bell Bros Steel, Inc. filed its Answer to the Damato Cross-Complaint.
On October 6,
2023, Damato Associates, Inc. amended the Damato Cross-Complaint to substitute
Roes 6 and 7 with Sanders & Wohrman Corporation and K&S Air
Conditioning, Inc., respectively.
On October 9,
2023, Preferred Paving Company filed its Cross-Complaint (“PPC
Cross-Complaint”) against Pavement Recycling Systems, Inc., HiTek Equipment
Company, Inc., Brian Franklin Thien, and Kelterite.
On October 9,
2023, Preferred Paving Company filed its Answer to the Damato Cross-Complaint.
On October
10, 2023, by request of Damato Associates, Inc., the Clerk’s Office dismissed
without prejudice Alliance Diversified Enterprises, Inc. and Accurate Laminated
Products, Inc. from the Damato Cross-Complaint.
On October
10, 2023, California Paving & Grading Co., Inc. filed its Answer to the
Emerald Cross-Complaint.
On October
12, 2023, by request of LAX Shopping, LLC, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without
prejudice Sanders & Wohrman Corporation from the FAC.
On October
13, 2023, K&S Air Conditioning, Inc. filed its Cross-Complaint (“K&S
Cross-Complaint”) only against Xoes 1 through 50.
On October
13, 2023, K&S Air Conditioning, Inc. filed its Answer to the FAC.
On October
23, 2023, JoJo Enterprises Inc. filed its Cross-Complaint (“JEI
Cross-Complaint”) only against Roes 1 through 200.
On October
24, 2023, JoJo Enterprises Inc. filed its Answer to the Damato Cross-Complaint.
On November
2, 2023, Skyline Construction & Design, Inc. filed its Answer to the
Emerald Cross-Complaint.
On November
2, 2023, Damato Associates, Inc. filed its Answer to the Emerald
Cross-Complaint.
On November
3, 2023, G Brothers Construction, Inc. filed its Answer to the Emerald
Cross-Complaint.
On November
3, 2023, Anna Corporation filed its Answer to the Emerald Cross-Complaint.
On November
3, 2023, Larsen Zienkiewicz, Inc. filed its Answer to the Emerald
Cross-Complaint.
On November
6, 2023, by request of Damato Associates, Inc., the Clerk’s Office dismissed
GBC Concrete and Masonry Construction Inc. from the Damato Cross-Complaint.
On November
8, 2023, Sanders & Wohrman Corporation filed its Answer to the Damato
Cross-Complaint.
On November
8, 2023, K&S Air Conditioning, Inc. filed its Answer to the Damato
Cross-Complaint.
On November
13, 2023, Sanders & Wohrman Corporation filed its Answer to the Emerald
Cross-Complaint.
On November
13, 2023, K&S Air Conditioning, Inc. filed its Answer to the Emerald
Cross-Complaint.
On November
13, 2023, Saddleback Roofing Inc. filed its Answer to the Emerald
Cross-Complaint.
On November
14, 2023, by request of Emerald Metal Products, Inc., the Clerk’s Office
dismissed without prejudice GBC Concrete & Masonry, Inc. from the Emerald
Cross-Complaint.
On December
18, 2023, LAX Shopping, LLC filed its Motion for Order Compelling Responses to
First and Second Set of Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents and
Things from Defendant James Goodman Architecture, Etc. (“Plaintiff’s Initial
RPDs Motion Against Goodman”). In support of Plaintiff’s Initial RPDs Motion
Against Goodman, LAX Shopping, LLC concurrently filed its Proposed Order.
No
oppositions or other responses have been filed to Plaintiff’s Initial RPDs
Motino Against Goodman.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal
Standard
A.
Legal
Standard
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. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a),
2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the
party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the
demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) By failing to respond, the
offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.290, subd. (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. Super. Ct.
(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. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
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 compel motions for
interrogatories or requests for production, unless the Court finds that the one
subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails
to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are
just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a
terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In
lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary
sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
II.
Conclusion
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, filed January 16, 2024, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion; the deadline for production of documents is February
9, 2024. No sanctions are awarded.