Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV37952, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37952    Hearing Date: May 30, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

ZHAOHUI WANG, ET AL. 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

CALIFORNIA PARKING SYSTEMS, INC, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV37952 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFEDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER AND ORDER ADVANCING HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

May 30, 2024 

 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiffs Zhaohui Wang, Liyuan Chang, Yijun Zhong, and Yuanyuan Zhou filed this action against defendants California Parking Systems Inc., Juan Ramon Mejia Hernandez and Does 1 to 50 for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  

Defendants California Parking Systems Inc. and Juan Ramon Mejia (collectively, “Defendants”) move the Court for an order compelling Liyuan Chang (“Plaintiff Chang”) and Yuanyuan Zhou (“Plaintiff Zhou”) to provide further responses to Defendants’ set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for admissions, and request for production of documents. At IDC, the issues were resolved, in which the substantive portions of the motions to compel further were moot. (Min. Order, May 17, 2024.) The motions remained on calendar for the sanctions request, with any opposition due on May 23, 2024, and a reply due May 28, 2024. (Ibid.)  

Defendants filed eight motions to compel further, with hearing dates set for March 30, 2024, March 31, 2024, June 4, 2024, June 7, 2024, and July 5, 2024. Because the substantive portions of all motions are not moot, and the only issue is the matter of sanctions pursuant to the Court’s May 17, 2023 Order, the motions to compel further set for March 31, 2024, June 4, 2024, June 7, 2024, and July 5, 2024 are hereby ADVANCED to be heard on the same date as the motions to compel further for March 30, 2024.   

 

II. SANCTIONS 

On May 23, 2024, Plaintiffs Chang and Zhou filed a declaration in opposition to the sanctions request. They argue they did not refuse to participate in IDC. Plaintiffs’ counsel contends after they ran out of extensions to provide responses, objections only were submitted because Plaintiffs’ counsel had a difficult time reaching Plaintiffs Zhou and Chang. Plaintiffs’ counsel avers that the delay in discovery was due to a breakdown in communication, which has since been repaired.  

On May 28, 2024, Defendants aver sanctions are warranted because Plaintiffs did not participate in the discovery process until the informal discovery conferences were set and the motions to compel were filed and served. 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response.  (CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).) Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Zhou and Chang’s refusal to communicate with their attorney, such that objection-only responses was served by Plaintiffs’ counsel, is not a reasonable excuse for the delay in discovery. Defendant requests sanctions in the amount of $800 for each motion to compel further responses.  

The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs related to the motions to compel further, but not to the full extent requested. A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.) Defendants are awarded $400 per motion to compel further. There are eight motions to compel further between the two Plaintiffs.  

 Because the delay was due to Plaintiffs Zhou and Chang’s failure to respond to their counsel’s communication, sanctions are imposed against only Plaintiffs Zhou and Chang only as follows:  

(1) Plaintiff Zhou is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,600, within twenty (20) days; and 

(2) Plaintiff Chang is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,600 within twenty (20) days. 

  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.¿¿ 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 29th day of May 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court