Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 21STCV27900, Date: 2024-08-23 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

1. Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded to Cross-Complainant, jointly and severally, in the amount of $76.02 and are payable within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. The court will discuss the amount of sanctions due to the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 at the hearing.

2. Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set Two, is GRANTED. The court will discuss the amount of sanctions due to the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 at the hearing.

3. Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Order (Further Verified Reponses to FROG Set No. 1 from Cross-Defendant Gray as this Court Ordered on 03/21/2023 and 03/18/2024) is GRANTED. The court will discuss the amount of sanctions due to the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 at the hearing.

Plaintiff Family Choice Private Duty Agency, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Cross-Defendant”) alleges the following:

On or around October 15, 2019, Marilyn Ashby (“Decedent”) entered into an agreement with Plaintiff wherein Plaintiff would provide in-home care services for Decedent. Decedent had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and needed care. Plaintiff provided the services pursuant to the agreement, from October 2019 through the time of Decedent’s death on February 14, 2020. At the time of Decedent’s death, there was an outstanding amount for the services Plaintiff provided, totaling approximately $84,348.00.

In the interim, Defendant, James P. Ashby (“James”) entered into an agreement with Plaintiff on March 16, 2020, to provide transportation services and grocery services. James is Decedent’s older brother and only brother. Plaintiff’s services for James included transporting James from Santa Barbara County, following an eviction, to Los Angeles County. It also included helping James obtain his driver’s license which had to be carried out in Arizona since the DMV offices in California were closed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff also assisted James in paying his bills, getting groceries and food delivery. James has not paid for any of Plaintiff’s services which totals to $38,516.01. James is refusing to pay the outstanding balance. Plaintiff is informed and believes that James’ believed that Decedent and/or her estate would pay for his outstanding invoices.

On June 2, 2020, Kamerron Easton (“Personal Representative” or “Kamerron” or “Cross-Complainant” and collectively with James as “Defendants”), filed a petition for administration of the Decedent’s estate. Kamerron was appointed personal representative of Decedent’s estate on April 16, 2021. On June 7, 2021, Kamerron served a rejection of Plaintiff’s creditor’s claim. Kamerron stated in the rejection that there is not enough money to pay other claims. At the time of filing this lawsuit, there are no other filed creditor claims. Pursuant to the Cal. Prob. Code §9255, Plaintiff is entitled to act on a rejected claim by filing a lawsuit.

On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants for:

On October 15, 2021, Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and Shellydale Princess Gray (“Gray” and collectively the “Defendants”) for:

A Final Status Conference is set for November 1, 2024 and Trial is set for November 12, 2024.

Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:

Cross-Complainant moves the court for an order compelling Cross-Defendant to provide further responses to Cross-Complainant’s Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff also seeks a monetary sanction in the amount of $76.02 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 and 2023.300 and $1,500.00 payable to this court under section 177.5.

On January 7, 2022, Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1, was served on Cross-Defendant. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. (Declaration of Kamerron Easton, ¶ 2, dated March 23, 2023.) On February 10, 2023, I received a response to the January 7, 2023 Special Interrogatories. (Id., ¶ 3.) It was not only vacuous and specious, but it was also incomplete, deficient, unusable and filled with general and meritless objections. (Id.) On March 1, 2023, I sent a Meet and Confer Letter via email to Cross-Defendant’s Counsel, outlining the deficiencies in Cross-Defendant’s responses and asking for a meet and confer. (Id., ¶ 4.) [A] short time after I sent the meet and confer letter and email, I did receive a phone call from Mr. Khouri. (Id.) He informed me he will have one of his associates obtain responses. (Id.) On March 21st after I had not heard from Mr. Khouri or from any of his associates, I sent another email to Mr. Khouri and in part I stated, “Please let me know when you have time to meet and confer regarding the above two meet and confer requests. If I do not receive a complete, straight forward verified response by end of the day Friday, March 24, 2023, I will file a motion to compel and request monetary sanctions/reasonable expenses.” (Id.)

On February 16, 2024, the court GRANTED Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Request for Production of Documents as to the Cross-Defendants. (See February 16, 2024 Minute Order.) The court also stated in the Minute Order: “Further responses to the relevant FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs much be served within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.” (Id. [emphasis added].)

On March 18, 2024, the court extended the time to produce the responses/documents to April 5, 2024. (See March 18, 2024 Minute Order.) The documents have not been produced.

The motion is unopposed. Defendant again is ordered to serve further, Code-compliant responses, without objections, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.[2]

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $76.02 in the notice but her declaration requests $114.77 in costs. The court will award the amount requested in the notice. As to sanctions under section 177.5, the court intends to issue an amount to be determined but will stay its order against Cross-Defendants and their counsel for a short period to be discussed at the hearing.

Cross-Complainant moves the court for an order compelling Cross-Defendant Gray to provide further responses to Cross-Complainant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. The court has ordered Cross-Defendant Gray to do so on two prior occasions: March 23, 2023 and February 16, 2024. Plaintiff also seeks a monetary sanction in the amount of $76.02 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 and 2023.300 and $1,500.00 payable to this court under section 177.5.

On February 16, 2024, the court GRANTED Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Request for Production of Documents as to the Cross-Defendants. (See February 16, 2024 Minute Order.) The court also stated in the Minute Order: “Further responses to the relevant FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs much be served within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.” (Id.)

On March 18, 2024, the court extended the time to produce the responses/documents to April 5, 2024. (See March 18, 2024 Minute Order.) The documents have not been produced.

The motion is unopposed. Defendant again is ordered to serve further, Code-compliant responses, without objections, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

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.”

Cross-Complainant moves the court for an order compelling Cross-Defendants to provide further responses to Cross-Complainant’s Demand for Inspection, Set One. Plaintiff also seeks a monetary sanction in the amount of $76.02 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 and 2023.300 and $1,500.00 payable to this court under section 177.5.

On February 16, 2024, the court GRANTED Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Request for Production of Documents concerning Cross-Defendant Gray. (See February 16, 2024 Minute Order.) The court also stated in the Minute Order: “Further responses to the relevant FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs much be served within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order.” (Id.)

On March 18, 2024, the court extended the time to produce the responses/documents to April 5, 2024. (See March 18, 2024 Minute Order.) The documents have not been produced.

The motion is unopposed. Defendant again is ordered to serve further, Code-compliant responses, without objections, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

[1] Motions Nos. 1 and 2 were filed on July 15, 2024, and served on the same date (by electronic delivery) and set for hearing on August 23, 2024. Motion No. 3 was filed on July 23, 2024, and served on July 19, 2024 (by electronic delivery) and set for hearing on August 23, 2024.

[2] Cross-Defendants’ counsel submitted a declaration in response to the “pending motions.” The declaration does not oppose the three motions at issue but provides context concerning his client’s health.