Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 21PSCV00032, Date: 2023-07-28 Tentative Ruling

1. Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Motion to Compel Defendant Paul Matthew Gongoria’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. One is GRANTED [see below]. Gongoria is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are imposed against Gongoria and his attorney of record in the reduced amount of $360.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.

2. Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Motion to Compel Defendant Dank Dynasty LLC’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. One is GRANTED [see below]. Dank Dynasty LLC is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are imposed against Dank and its attorney of record in the reduced amount of $360.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.

3. Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Motion to Compel Defendant Paul Matthew Gongoria’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One is GRANTED [see below]. Gongoria is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are imposed against Gongoria and his attorney of record in the reduced amount of $360.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.

4. Plaintiff City of El Monte’s Motion to Compel Defendant Dank Dynasty LLC’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One is GRANTED [see below]. Dank Dynasty LLC is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are imposed against Dank Dynasty LLC and its attorney of record in the reduced amount of $360.00 and are payable within 30 days of the date of the notice of ruling.

Defendants Paul Matthew Gongoria (“Gongoria”), Dank Dynasty LLC (“Dank”), McBean Properties, LLC (“McBean”) and Select Homes & Investments (“Select Homes”) (collectively, “Defendants”) own, inhabit and/or operate the property located at 11666 McBean Drive, El Monte, California 91732 (“subject property”). On June 2, 2017, members of the El Monte Police Department (“Police”) executed a search warrant at the subject property. While executing the warrant, the Police observed that the interior of the subject property had been divided into rooms sectioned off by drywall, with the front room appearing to be a “security room” with a glass window and customer check-in area, and the back room serving as a retail space with numerous glass display cases and countertops filled with marijuana, marijuana paraphernalia, tobacco, tobacco products, lighters, and clothing

The Police seized numerous items which had been used to cultivate, manufacture, store and/or sell marijuana at the subject property in violation of municipal and state law.

On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-100 for:

2. Violation of Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

On April 5, 2021, McBean and Select Homes filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Gongoria, Jeffrey Yoshito Katayama (“Katayama”), Dank, Tru Squishy Face (“Tru Squishy”) and Does 1-100 for:

On July 7, 2022, McBean and Select Homes dismissed Tru Squishy, without prejudice.

A response to a request for production of documents is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or

sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, . . . [t]he party making the demand may

move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who

unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection,

copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with

substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Gongoria to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set No. One. Plaintiff additionally seeks sanctions against Gongoria and/or his attorney of record in the amount of $760.00.

On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff served the subject discovery. (Whittemore Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B.) Gongoria has not provided any responses as of the April 27, 2023 motion filing date. (Id., ¶ 6.)

The court notes that the instant motion originally came on calendar on June 6, 2023; at that time, the court continued the hearing to July 28, 2023 and instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to provide notice. There is no indication on ecourt (i.e., as of July 18, 2023 at 9:51 a.m.) that Plaintiff’s counsel provided notice as instructed. The following ruling, then, is contingent upon Plaintiff’s counsel providing the court at or before the time of the hearing with satisfactory evidence that notice of the July 28, 2023 hearing was, in fact, provided:

The motion is granted. Gongoria is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Again, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Gongoria and/or his attorney of record in the amount of $760.00 [calculated as follows: 1 hour preparing motion, plus 0.5 hours preparing reply, plus 0.5 hours preparing for and attending hearing at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee].

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $360.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $300.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are imposed against Gongoria and his attorney of record and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Dank to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set No. One. Plaintiff additionally seeks sanctions against Dank and/or its attorney of record in the amount of $585.00.

On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff served the subject discovery. (Whittemore Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B.) Dank has not provided any responses as of the April 27, 2023 motion filing date. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Again, the instant motion originally came on calendar on June 6, 2023; at that time, the court continued the hearing to July 28, 2023 and instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to provide notice. There is no indication on ecourt (i.e., as of July 18, 2023 at 9:51 a.m.) that Plaintiff’s counsel provided notice as instructed. The following ruling, then, is contingent upon Plaintiff’s counsel providing the court at or before the time of the hearing with satisfactory evidence that notice of the July 28, 2023 hearing was, in fact, provided:

The motion is granted. Dank is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents and Things, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Again, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Dank and/or its attorney of record in the amount of $585.00 [calculated as follows: 0.5 hours preparing motion, plus 0.5 hours preparing reply, plus 0.5 hours preparing for and attending hearing at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee].

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $360.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $300.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are imposed against Dank and its attorney of record and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

A response to interrogatories is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.

(a).) “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, . . . [t]he

party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Gongoria to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One. Plaintiff additionally seeks sanctions against Gongoria and/or his attorney of record in the amount of $760.00.

On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff served the subject discovery. (Whittemore Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B.)[2] Gongoria has not provided any responses as of the April 27, 2023 motion filing date. (Id., ¶ 6.)

On June 6, 2023, the court rescheduled the hearing on this instant motion (then set for July 13, 2023) to July 28, 2023 and instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to provide notice. There is no indication on ecourt (i.e., as of July 18, 2023 at 9:51 a.m.) that Plaintiff’s counsel provided notice as instructed. The following ruling, then, is contingent upon Plaintiff’s counsel providing the court at or before the time of the hearing with satisfactory evidence that notice of the July 28, 2023 hearing was, in fact, provided:

The motion is granted. Gongoria is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff served the subject discovery. (Whittemore Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B.)[3] Gongoria has not provided any responses as of the April 27, 2023 motion filing date. (Id., ¶ 6.)

The motion is granted. Gongoria is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

[1] Motions #1-#2 were filed (and served via mail and email) on April 27, 2023; Motion #1 was originally set for hearing on June 6, 2023, Motion #2 was originally set for hearing June 7, 2023 and Motions #3 and #4 were originally set for hearing on July 3, 2023. On April 28, 2023, a “Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order” was filed, wherein the June 7, 2023 hearing on Motion #2 was reset to June 6, 2023; notice was given to counsel.

[2] Whittemore attests that the subject discovery was served on June 1, 2022; however, the proof of service accompanying Exhibit B reflects that the discovery was served on March 11, 2022.

[3] See footnote #4.