Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 19STCV31305, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 19STCV31305    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Western Asset Management Company, LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff Jennifer Hua to comply with the Court’s Order appointing discovery referee is denied.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

          Defendant Western Asset Management Company, LLC (“WAM”) (“Defendant”), moves to compel Plaintiff Jennifer Hua (“Hua”) (“Plaintiff”) to comply with the Court’s order appointing discovery referee and to pay her past-due balance for $16,075 owed to the Court-ordered discovery referee for services rendered in this case.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)   Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $6,975.00, for misuse of the discovery process, and an order imposing sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.030, 177.5.)  In opposition, Plaintiff moves for sanctions in the amount of $11,900.00 against Defendant and its counsel.  (Opposition, pgs. 2-3.)

Background

On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff nominated Hon. Richard Stone (Ret.) to serve as a discovery referee in the instant matter.  On November 9, 2021, this Court appointed Judge Stone to serve as discovery referee.  (11/9/21 Order.)  This Court ordered Plaintiff and Defendant to pay equal shares for referee fees.  (11/9/21 Order.)

          Defendant filed the instant motion on December 9, 2022.  Plaintiff filed her opposition on December 20, 2022.  Defendant filed its reply on December 27, 2022.

Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order

Defendant terminated Plaintiff from her employment on March 20, 2020, and Plaintiff remains currently unemployed since her March 2020 termination.  (Decl. of Hua ¶2.)  Due to Plaintiff’s financial situation, Judge Stone agreed to place Plaintiff under a payment plan to cover her share of referee fees.  (Decl. of Hua ¶8.)  Plaintiff is currently paying in accordance with a payment plan that Judge Stone approved.  (Decl. of Hua ¶10; Decl. of Freeze ¶3, Exh. A.)  As of December 19, 2022, Plaintiff remains on the payment plan approved by Judge Stone for monthly installments of $5,000.00.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶4, Exh. B.)  On December 19, 2022, Judge Stone clarified that Plaintiff is meeting her obligations of her share of discovery referee’s fees per the payment plan and stated he will assist parties when Plaintiff’s account is current but will not work without compensation.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶27, Exh. O; Supp.-Decl. of Beilke ¶2, Exh. 23.)  Judge Stone indicated Plaintiff “was in arrears quite a bit of money (because of the need to handle several motions with the trial date looming).”  (Reply, pg. 2; Supp.-Decl. of Beilke, Exh. 23.)  As of December 19, 2022, Plaintiff’s balance owed is $11,075.00.  (Decl. of Freeze ¶4, Exh. B.)

Defendant argues its motion should be granted on the basis that Plaintiff’s outstanding balance to Judge Stone demonstrates her failure to comply with this Court’s order requiring parties to pay their “equal share” of the discovery referee’s fees.  (Motion, pg. 12; Reply, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated she has not missed a payment on her payment plan.  (Decl. of Hua ¶10; Decl. of Freeze ¶¶3, 4, Exhs. A, B.)  So long as Plaintiff continues to comply with per payment plan, This Court’s order that Plaintiff pay an equal share of fees to the discovery referee has not been violated.

          Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s 11/9/21 order is denied.

Monetary Sanctions

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Dated:  January _____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court