Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: BS138171, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BS138171 Hearing Date: April 24, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1 and Request for Sanctions
Moving Party: Judgment Creditor James Dalessandro
Resp. Party: Judgment Debtor Eric Mitchell
The Further SROGs Motion is GRANTED.
Judgment Debtor shall provide further responses to the SROGs at issue within 10 days of the issuance of this Order.
Judgment Creditor’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On July 10, 2012, Petitioner Writers Guild of America, West Inc. filed its ADR-106, Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award against Respondent Citizen Jane Productions, LLC and Cibola Entertainment, LLC.
On March 1, 2013, the Court approved the Petition and confirmed the Arbitrator’s Opinion and Award in all respects.
On March 22, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of Petitioner and against Respondents in the total sum of $61,558.21.
On December 2, 2013, Petitioner filed its Acknowledgement of Assignment of Judgment Pursuant to C.C.P. §673, which acknowledged Petitioner’s assignment of Petitioner’s right, title, and interest in the Judgment to James Dalessandro (“Judgment Creditor”).
On July 5, 2016, the Court amended the Judgment such that Citizen Jane Production, LLC, Cibola Entertainment, LLC, and Eric Albert Mitchell were jointly and severally liable for the Judgment.
On September 11, 2017, the Court entered its Amended Judgment, awarding $61,558.21 in favor of Judgment Creditor and against Judgment Debtors.
From September 11, 2017 to August 20, 2020, various sanctions and attorney’s fees awards were granted in favor of Judgment Creditor, Judgment Debtor Eric Mitchell (“Judgment Debtor”), or both Judgment Creditor and Judgment Debtor. All awards in favor of Judgment Debtor have been acknowledged as fully satisfied. (See EJ-100s, filed: July 31, 2017; December 22, 2017; December 26, 2017; January 8, 2019; March 21, 2019; September 13, 2019; August 5, 2020 [one for each of Judgment Creditor and his Counsel]; and September 11, 2020.) However, not all awards in favor of Judgment Creditor have been fully satisfied.
On February 9, 2021, the Court awarded $24,633.30 in attorney’s fees and costs in favor of Judgment Creditor and against Judgment Debtor.
On March 8, 2022, Judgment Creditor filed his EJ-190, Application for and Renewal of Judgment. Judgment Creditor (as assignee of record) applied for renewal of judgment in the total amount of $192,200.81. This consisted of $52,277.21 for the judgment, $39,993.60 for costs after judgment, $99,885.00 for interest after judgment, and $45.00 for the EJ-190 filing fee. Item 5.a. to the EJ190 provided further detail.
On November 29, 2023, Judgment Debtor’s Counsel filed Notice of Withdrawal of Consent.
On March 12, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1 and Request for Sanctions (“Further SROGs Motion”). In support of his Further SROGs Motion, Judgment Creditor concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of E. Jay Gotfredson; (2) Judicial Council Form MC-050, Substitution of Attorney—Civil; and (3) Proof of Service.
On March 29, 2024, Judgment Debtor filed his Opposition to the Further SROGs Motion. In support of his Opposition, Judgment Debtor concurrently filed Judicial Council Form POS-050/EFS-050, Proof of Electronic Service.
On April 17, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed his Reply in support of his Further SROGs Motion.
ANALYSIS:
I. Legal Standard
On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)
The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further interrogatories and/or a motion to compel further production of documents, unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)
II. Discussion
A. The Parties’ Arguments
Judgment Creditor moves the Court to: (1) compel further responses to certain special interrogatories (“SROGs”); and (2) award monetary sanctions in favor of Judgment Creditor and against Judgment Debtor. (Further SROGs Motion, p. 5:2–5.)
Judgment Debtor opposes the Further SROGs Motion, arguing: (1) that there is no evidence of service of the interrogatories; (2) that the proof of service for the interrogatories does not comply with the requirements for service by mail; (3) that the failure to follow the rules for service by mail negates the service; (4) that the proof of service does not comply with the requirements for electronic service; (5) that discovery cannot be electronically served because electronic service only applies to documents filed with the Court; (6) that the responses to the SROGs were timely served; and (7) that sanctions are not appropriate against Judgment Debtor. (Opposition, pp. 2:2, 2:10-11, 3:4, 3:15–16, 3:26–27, 6:1, 6:10.)
Judgment Creditor reiterates his arguments in his Reply.
B. The Relevant Timeline
The following is the relevant timeline:
(1) on October 20, 2023, Judgment Creditor’s Counsel served the SROGs at issue on Judgment Debtor;
(2) on November 25, 2023, Judgment Debtor served initial responses to the SROGs;
(3) on November 29, 2023, Judgment Debtor’s Counsel filed Notice of Withdrawal of Consent;
(4) on December 13, 2023, Judgment Creditor requested further responses to the SROGs;
(5) on December 22, 2023, Judgment Debtor served further responses to the SROGs;
(6) on January 8, 2024, Judgment Creditor requested further responses to the SROGs;
(7) on January 22, 2024, Judgment Debtor served further responses to the SROGs;
(8) on January 31, 2024, Judgment Creditor requested further responses to the SROGs; and
(9) as of the hearing on the Further SROGs Motion, there is no evidence that Judgment Debtor has served further responses to the SROGs.
(Decl. Gotfredson, Exhs. A–G.)
C. Judgment Debtor Waived Any Issue with the Unsigned Proof of Service
Judgment Debtor points to the unsigned Proof of Service in Exhibit A in the Declaration of E. Jay Gotfredson, arguing that this is “fatal to the Motion.” (Opposition, p. 2:9.)
Not so.
Exhibit A is merely evidence that interrogatories were sent to Judgment Debtor. Thus, if Judgment Creditor came to the Court with a request for an order compelling initial responses to the SROGs without signed proof of service, Judgment Debtor would have a meritorious procedural argument. Furthermore, subsequent evidence demonstrates that Judgment Debtor did in fact respond to the initial SROGs. In fact, Judgement Debtor specifically states that he received and responded to the interrogatories. (Opposition, p. 6:3-4.)
Regardless, the motion at hand involves further responses to these SROGs, not initial responses these SROGs. (See Further SROGs Motion, p. 1:13–15.) Although Judgment Creditor’s Counsel may not have done a stellar job of writing a motion to compel further responses to these SROGs — e.g., he cited portions of the Code of Civil Procedure that involve initial responses to interrogatories and ignored portions of the Code that involve further responses to interrogatories — that does not mean Judgment Debtor automatically prevails on any issue that involves further responses to these SROGs. (See Further SROGs Motion, p. 4, incorrectly citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)–(b) instead of § 2030.300, subd. (a).) While the memorandum to the Further SROGs Motion appears to be copied and pasted from an earlier motion that requested initial responses to interrogatories (see, e.g., Motion, p. 3:23-25), the Court is able to discern from the Declaration of E. Jay Gotfredson and the various exhibits attached that further responses to the SROGs are what Judgment Creditor actually seeks at this time.
In short, by actually providing initial responses to the SROGs, Judgment Debtor waived any service issue as to initial receipt of the SROGs. Therefore, as Judgment Debtor has waived any service issue as to initial receipt of the SROGs, such an issue cannot be a basis for a subsequent procedural issue with Judgment Creditor’s request for further responses to the SROGs.
D. There are No Subsequent Procedural Issues with Service
Judgment Debtor makes multiple arguments about subsequent issues with mail and electronic service. However, all of these arguments are predicated on an alleged initial unsigned proof of service and the initial response to the SROGs, not the outstanding further responses to the SROGs. (Opposition, pp. 2:10–11, 3:4, 3:26–27, 6:1.) For the same reasons discussed above, these arguments are not meritorious.
The Court is also aware that on November 29, 2023, Judgment Debtor’s then-Counsel, D. Joshua Staub, filed “Notice of Withdrawal of Consent.” The Notice stated that then-Counsel Staub “revokes the consent to receive service for judgment debtor Eric Mitchell under Code of Civil Procedure section 684.020.” (Notice of Withdrawal of Consent, p. 2:1–3.)
Thus, as of November 29, 2023, papers had to be served on Judgment Debtor, not on Judgment Debtor’s then-Counsel.
The Court points out that each of the requests for further responses sent by Judgment Creditor’s Counsel appear to have been sent to Judgment Debtor by mail (with no evidence submitted that these requests were sent to Judgment Debtor by electronic service). (Decl. Gotfredson, Exhs. C, E, G.) It is irrelevant that Judgment Debtor’s then-Counsel was also provided with copies of these requests electronically. (Ibid.)
E. Further Responses are Appropriate
Judgment Creditor propounded dozens of SROGs on Judgment Debtor. (Decl. Gotfredson, Exh. A.) Judgment Debtor has repeatedly served boilerplate objections that are largely evasive. (See, for example, Decl. Gotfredson, Exh. F.) Judgment Creditor timely requested further responses. (Decl. Gotfredson, Exh. G.) In fact, Judgement Debtor has avoided paying his debt for more than a decade.
The Court GRANTS the Further SROGs Motion.
Judgment Debtor shall provide further responses to the SROGs at issue within 10 days of the issuance of this Order.
F. Sanctions
Judgment Debtor now appears to be litigating this matter in propria persona. (See MC-050.) Issuing monetary sanctions on Judgment Debtor, who must navigate enforcement matters without the aid of counsel, would not be appropriate. Should Judgement Debtor again retain counsel, or continue to evade his responsibility for paying this judgment, the Court might reconsider the issue of sanctions in a future motion.
The Court DENIES Judgment Creditor’s Request for Monetary Sanctions.
III. Conclusion
The Further SROGs Motion is GRANTED.
Judgment Debtor shall provide further responses to the SROGs at issue within 10 days of the issuance of this Order.
Judgment Creditor’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.