Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00777, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00777    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: O

1.         Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants William Huang’s and Fie Lan Lo’s Motion to Compel Defendant/Cross-Complainant Juchen Du et. al.’s Discovery Responses is GRANTED. Du and Chen are ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Huang’s and Lo’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two, Special Interrogatories, Set No. One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of service of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $585.00 [see below] and are payable within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of ruling.

2.         Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants William Huang’s and Fie Lan Lo’s Motion for an Order that the Genuineness of Any Documents and the Truth of Any Matters Specified in Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Requests for Admissions (Set Two) Propounded on Defendants/Cross-Complainants be Deemed Admitted is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $350.00 [see below] and are payable within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of ruling.

Background[1]  

This is a landlord/tenant action involving the premises located at 17032 Colima Rd. #123, Hacienda Heights, CA 91745.

On September 23, 2021, Plaintiffs William Huang (“Huang”) and Fie Lan Lo (“Lo”) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Juechen Du (“Du”) and Kaiheng Chen (“Chen”) for:

1.                  Negligence

2.                  Breach of Contract

3.                  Conversion

4.                  Failure to Pay Rent

5.                  Civil Conspiracy

On October 22, 2021, Du and Chen filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Huang, Lo and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  False Accusation and Retaliatory Eviction

3.                  Negligence

The Final Status Conference is set for September 12, 2023. Trial is set for September 26, 2023.

1.         Motion to Compel Discovery

Legal Standard

Interrogatories

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

interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

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).)

Document Production

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 request for production of documents is

directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party making the demand may move for an

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

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who

unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a motion to compel, 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Huang and Lo move the court for an order compelling Du and Chen (collectively, “Du/Chen”) to provide responses, without objections, to Huang’s and Lo’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two, Special Interrogatories, Set No. One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. Two. Huang and Lo further seek sanctions against Du/Chen in the amount of $4,960.00.

Hung and Lo’s counsel Long Z. Liu (“Liu”) represents that Du/Chen were served with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, Sets No. Two on April 29, 2022; that Lui emailed Du/Chen on August 2, 2022, despite having no obligation to do so, and unilaterally gave them an extension to respond to the aforesaid discovery by August 8, 2022 and that Du/Chen have still failed to provide responses. (Liu Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 4.)

The motion is granted. It is unopposed. Du/Chen are ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Huang’s and Lo’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two, Special Interrogatories, Set No. One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. Two, within 20 days from the date of service of the notice of ruling.

Sanctions

Huang and Lo seek sanctions against Du/Chen in the amount of $4,960.00 [calculated as follows: 7.8 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour attending hearing, plus 1 hour preparing reply at $500.00/hour, plus $60.00 in costs].

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 $585.00 (i.e., 1.5 hours at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 in costs). This amount is divided amongst the two defendants, both of whom shall be responsible for $292.50. Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of ruling.

2.         Motion Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

Legal Standard

A response to requests for admission is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §

2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a

timely response, . . .[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any

documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. . .” (Code

Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) “The court shall make this order, 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. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . 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).)

Discussion

Hung and Lo move the court for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth

of any matters specified in Hung’s and Lo’s Requests for Admissions, Set No. Two, propounded

Du/Chen be deemed admitted. Hung and Lo also seek monetary sanctions against Hung and Lo

in the amount of $3,860.00.

See synopsis of Motion #1.

The motion is granted. It is unopposed.

Sanctions

Huang and Lo seek sanctions against Du/Chen in the amount of $3,860.00 [calculated as follows: 5.6 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour attending hearing, plus 1 hour preparing reply at $500.00/hour, plus $60.00 in costs].

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 $350.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 in costs). This amount is divided amongst the two defendants, both of whom shall be responsible for $175.00. Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of ruling.