Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21STCV30368, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30368    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 34

Defendants/Judgment Creditors Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corp. and George Sturges’ Motion to Compel Compliance against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor California Fueling, LLC is GRANTED. Sanctions are AWARDED to Defendants in the amount of $3,717.00 against Plaintiff.

Background

            On August 17, 2021, Plaintiff California Fueling, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corporation and George Sturges (“Defendants”) alleging causes of action for:

1.               Breach of Contract;

2.               Fraud; and,

3.               Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.

On November 1, 2021, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On November 15, 2021, Defendants filed an amended answer to the complaint.

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff amended its complaint to substitute Doe 1 with A Transport Corporation.

On June 6, 2022, Defendant A Transport Corporation filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff amended its complaint to substitute Doe 2 with Best Energy Holdings, LLC.

On July 1, 2022, Defendant Best Energy Holdings, LLC filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On June 6, 2023, Defendant Best Energy Holdings, LLC filed an amended answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On June 6, 2023, Defendant A Transport Corporation filed an amended answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

On June 6, 2023, Defendants Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corporation and George Sturges filed a second amended answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On August 11, 2023, the court granted Defendants Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corporation, George Sturges, A Transport Corporation, and Best Energy Holdings, LLC’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff’s second cause of action for fraud in the complaint.

On September 8, 2023, the court granted Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff’s third cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

On October 16, 2023, after jury trial, the court entered judgment in this action.

On January 17, 2024, the court entered judgment regarding attorney’s fees.

On January 30, 2025, Defendants Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corp. and George Sturges (“Moving Defendants”) filed this Motion to Compel Compliance and Request for Sanctions against Plaintiff. On February 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 4, 2025, Moving Defendants filed a reply.

Legal Standard

A responding party must respond to each propounded request for production of documents with either a statement of compliance, a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply, or an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) “If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320, subd. (a).) 

Discussion

Request for Judicial Notice

            Moving Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted. “A court may properly take judicial notice of its own records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (e).)” (Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 21.) 

Evidentiary Objections

            The court overrules Moving Defendants’ objections to the Declaration of Patrick McDuff filed in support of Plaintiff’s opposition.

Production of Documents

            Moving Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to comply with the Requests for Production of Documents Plaintiff had agreed to produce. (Motion, at pp. 4-5.) On August 21, 2024, Moving Defendants served the Requests for Production of Documents, on Plaintiff. (Cabrera Decl., ¶ 2.) On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff served initial responses agreeing to multiple requests to produce without objections. (Ibid.) Subsequently, Plaintiff has produced six batches of documents in response to the requests. However, Plaintiff has still failed to sufficiently produce the documents it agreed to provide. (Id., ¶ 5.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that it has produced all the documents within its possession, custody, or control. (Opp., at p. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff argues that there are no more documents to produce. (Id., at p. 3.)

            Plaintiff has not provided sufficient responses to Moving Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents in accordance with its agreement that it would do so. Plaintiff is ordered to fully comply with its own response to Moving Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents within 30 days of this order.  The issue of whether Plaintiff’s document production is incomplete should be resolved in a motion compel further responses, if necessary. Plaintiff must provide code compliant responses to the requests if it contends that certain documents are unavailable. The court notes that Plaintiff has provided six different batches of documents to Moving Defendants. Plaintiff must make a reasonable effort to provide the discovery in an accurate and efficient manner following this order, as it should have following its initial response to the requests.

Request for Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, 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. § 2031.320, subd. (b).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).) 

Here, Moving Defendants request monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,717.00 to be imposed against Plaintiff. (Cabrera Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.) In granting the instant motion, the court finds it reasonable to award Moving Defendants’ sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,717.00, for a total of 7.70 hours in attorney time to pursue this motion at an hourly rate of $475.00 an hour plus a filing fee of $60.00. Again, the court notes the six different batches of documents and time delayed that could have been prevented by Plaintiff exercising due diligence.

Conclusion

Defendants/Judgment Creditors Best Energy Solutions & Technology Corp. and George Sturges’ Motion to Compel Compliance against Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor California Fueling, LLC is GRANTED. Sanctions are AWARDED to Defendants in the amount of $3,717.00 against Plaintiff.