Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 3STCV07323, Date: 2023-10-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 3STCV07323 Hearing Date: October 16, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion for an
Order to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff’s Special
Interrogatories (Set One) [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Bank of America, N.A.
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion for an
Order to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories to Plaintiff’s Form
Interrogatories (Set Nos. One and Two) [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Bank of America, N.A.
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion for an
Order to Compel Production of Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production
of Documents (Set One) [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Bank of America, N.A.
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion for an
Order that the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for
Admissions (Set No. One) be Deemed Admitted [and] Request for Monetary
Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Bank of America, N.A.
Resp. Party: None
The FROGs Motion, the SROGs Motion, and the RPDs Motion are GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall provide initial responses to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs within
14 days of the issuance of this Order.
The RFAs Motion is GRANTED. The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.
The Court declines to award attorney's fees or costs.
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. filed
its Complaint against Defendants Kelly Young Ok and Chaerin Hazel Ok on causes
of action for breach of lease and fraudulent transfers.
On May 19, 2023, Defendant Chaerin Hazel Ok filed her
Answer to the Complaint.
On June 2, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s
Office entered default against Defendant Kelly Young Ok.
On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed: (1) Motion for an Order to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories to
Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Nos. One and Two) [and] Request for
Monetary Sanctions (“FROGs Motion”); (2) Motion for an Order to Compel
Responses to Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories
(Set One) [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions (“SROGs Motion”); (3) Motion for
an Order to Compel Production of Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for
Production of Documents (Set One) [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions (“RPDs
Motion”); and (4) Motion for an Order that the Truth of the Matters Specified
in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set No. One) be Deemed Admitted [and]
Request for Monetary Sanctions (“RFAs Motion”). In support of each of the motions,
Plaintiff concurrently filed a Proposed Order and a Proof of Service.
On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Non-Opposition.
ANALYSIS:
I.
FROGs Motion,
SROGs Motion, and RPDs Motion
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. Pacific 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).)
B. Discussion
Plaintiff moves the Court to compel
Defendant Chaerin Hazel Ok (“Defendant”) to serve responses to the form
interrogatories (“FROGs”), special interrogatories (“SROGs”), and request for
production of documents (“RPDs”) that Plaintiff propounded on May 23, 2023 and
July 14, 2023. (FROGs Motion, p. 2:13–15 and Exhs. A, p. 9, B, p. 10; SROGs
Motion, p. 2:5–8 and Exh. A, p. 8; RPDs Motion, p. 2:6–9 and Exh. A, p. 8.)
According to Plaintiff’s Counsel, Defendant has not responded to these
discovery requests. (FROGs Motion, Decl. Shakouri, ¶ 4; SROGs Motion, Decl.
Shakouri, ¶ 4; RPDs Motion, Decl. Shakouri, ¶ 4.)
There is no evidence before the
Court that would indicate Defendant responded to these discovery requests.
The Court GRANTS the FROGs Motion, the SROGs Motion, and the RPDs
Motion. Defendant shall provide initial responses to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs
within 14 days of the issuance of this Order.
C.
Sanctions
For each of these motions, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions.
Defendant failed to serve a timely response to the FROGs, SROGs, and
RPDs. The Court does not have evidence before it that would indicate there is
substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition
of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on
Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff requests $1,760.00 in attorney's fees and costs for each
motion. Plaintiff’s Counsel declares:
(1) that their hourly rate is either $495.00 or $425.00 per hour; (2) that they
spent two hours drafting each of motion and will spend another 2 hours on the oppositions,
replies and hearing; and (3) that they spent $60.00 per motion in costs for the
filing fee. (FROGs Motion, Decl. Shakouri, ¶¶ 8.b., 9; SROGs Motion, Decl.
Shakouri, ¶¶ 8.b., 9; RPDs Motion, Decl. Shakouri, ¶¶ 8.b., 9.)
The Court finds that the hourly rate and costs incurred are reasonable.
However, the hours incurred for the hearings are duplicative, and no reasonable
attorney charging $425/hour – and no “Super Lawyer” charging $495/hour – would take two hours to draft each of these motions. These are boiler-plate motions; the
background sections of each motion are almost identical; and there is no
original research for these boiler-plate motions to compel. Further, the hearings on all the motions will
probably take 10 minutes total – not 30 minutes per 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.” (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d
621, 635 [cleaned up].) “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 to award sanctions or costs.
D.
Conclusion
The FROGs Motion, the SROGs Motion, and the RPDs Motion are GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall provide initial responses to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs within
14 days of the issuance of this Order. The
Court declines to award sanctions or costs.
II.
RFAs Motion
A.
Legal
Standard
California Code of Civil Procedure requires a
response from the party to whom the request for admissions is directed within
30 days after service of the request for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.250, subd. (a).)
If the party fails to serve a timely response,
“the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection
to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
The requesting party may then “move for an
order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters
specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanction
under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
A court will deem requests admitted, “unless
it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has
served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests
for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory
that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with
Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a
timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
B. Discussion
Plaintiff moves the Court to deem admitted the truth of the
matters specified in the requests for admission (“RFAs”) that Plaintiff
propounded on July 14, 2023. (RFAs Motion, p. 2:4–8 and Exh. A, p. 8.)
According to Plaintiff’s Counsel, Defendant has not responded to these RFAs.
(RFAs Motion, Decl. Shakouri, ¶ 4.)
There is no evidence before the Court that would indicate Defendant
responded to the RFAs.
The Court GRANTS the RFAs Motion. The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.
C.
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions.
Defendant failed to serve a timely response to the RFAs. Thus, the
Court must impose a monetary sanction on Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.280, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff requests $1,760.00 in attorney's fees and costs for this motion. Plaintiff’s Counsel declares: (1) that their
hourly rate is either $495.00 or $425.00 per hour; (2) that they spent two
hours drafting the motion and will spend another 2 hours on the opposition,
reply and hearing; and (3) that they spent $60.00 in costs for the filing fee.
(RFAs Motion, Decl. Shakouri, ¶¶ 8.b., 9.)
The Court finds that the hourly rate and costs incurred are reasonable.
However, the hours incurred for the hearings are duplicative, and no reasonable
attorney charging $425/hour – and no “Super Lawyer” charging $495/hour – would take two hours to draft this motion. This is a boiler-plate motion; the background
section of this motion is almost identical to that of the other three motions
to compel; and there is no original research in this boiler-plate motion. Further, the hearings on all four motions combined
will probably take 10 minutes total – not 30 minutes per 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.”
(Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 [cleaned up].) “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 to award sanctions or costs.
D.
Conclusion
The RFAs Motion is GRANTED. The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED. The Court declines to award sanctions or costs.