Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 19STCV45422, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV45422 Hearing Date: May 8, 2023 Dept: 78
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 78
CINAMOM’S GOODIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
E&Z FOOD SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants. Case No.: 19STCV45422
Hearing Date: May 8, 2023
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
PLAINTIFF CINAMOM’S GOODIES, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
Plaintiff Cinamom’s Goodies, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories is DENIED.
The request for sanctions is DENIED.
Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an action for breach of contract. The Complaint alleges as follows.
Plaintiff Cinamom’s Goodies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is a producer of confectionary that sought to expand its operation by leasing a bakery. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.) Defendants E&Z Food Services, Inc. and Ezzat Faltas (together “Defendants”) hold title to real property located at 3915 East Gage Ave, Bell, CA (the “Subject Property”) that had previously been used as a commissary and that contained commercial grade cooking equipment (the “Equipment”). (Compl. ¶ 13.)
In August 2019, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a commercial lease (the “Agreement”) for Plaintiff to lease the Subject Property and the Equipment from Defendants. (Compl. ¶ 4; Exh. A.) In compliance with the Agreement, Plaintiff inspected the premises and sent Defendants a notice detailing numerous repairs that Defendants needed to make to the Subject Property before Plaintiff would accept possession. (Compl. ¶ 16; Exh. B.) Defendants dismissed this correspondence and informed Plaintiff that they would only make repairs that Defendants were verbally informed of. (Compl. ¶ 18.) These repairs are necessary for city code compliance, and for premise health and safety. (Compl. ¶ 19.)
In addition, the Agreement required that Defendants provided the Equipment to Plaintiff in good working order. (Compl. ¶ 20.) Some of the Equipment is either missing or not working. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22.) When Plaintiff informed Defendants of these issues, Defendants accused Plaintiff of removing the Equipment from the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶ 23.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting seven causes of action:
1. Breach of Written Contract;
2. Fraud;
3. Negligent Misrepresentation;
4. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
5. Unfair Business Practices;
6. Conversion; and,
7. Unjust Enrichment
On February 25, 2020, Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint asserting four causes of action:
1. Breach of Contract;
2. Fraud;
3. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and,
4. Negligence
On October 13, 2020, Defendants filed the First Amended Cross-Complaint asserting the same four causes of action.
On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories.
On March 7, 2023, Defendants filed an Opposition.
As of May 3, 2023, no Reply has been filed.
DISCUSSION
I. MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants’ responses to Special Interrogatories Set One pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.
The propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and monetary sanctions if a party to whom the interrogatories are directed fails to respond. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Responses to interrogatories are due within thirty days from the date of service of the interrogatories. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2016.050.) The responding party waives any objections to the interrogatories by failing to serve responses in a timely manner. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)
Here, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendants on September 9, 2022. (Manjlai Decl., Exh. A.) Defendants’ responses were due by October 11, 2022. On September 30, 2022, Defendants requested an extension until November 14, 2022, which Plaintiff granted. (Id. ¶ 5.) On October 4, 2022, Defendants requested a second extension until November 18, 2022, which Plaintiff again granted. (Id. ¶ 6.)
On November 18, 2022, Defendants served unverified responses on Plaintiff, which as of the filing of the instant motion, have not been verified. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendants to serve verified responses, without objections, due to the untimeliness of Defendants’ responses.
In Opposition, Defendants note that Defendants timely served unverified responses on November 18, 2022. (Shapiro Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendants provided only objections to all but the 17th special interrogatory. On December 23, 2022, Defendants served a verification as to the 17th response, after receiving the instant motion to compel. (Shapiro Decl. ¶ 4.)
Defendants note that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to filing the instant motion, or to request an IDC on the matter as required by this Court.
The Court finds that Defendants timely served objections to the Special Interrogatories, and that the matter of the unverified 17th response is now moot as a verification has been served.
If Plaintiff believes that Defendants’ objections are improper, Plaintiff may meet and confer with Defendants regarding that matter. Should a meet and confer not remedy the issue, Plaintiff may file a request for an IDC to resolve the issues. A Motion to Compel is improper where Defendants timely served objection to the Special Interrogatories, save for one substantive response that lacked the required verification, an issue that easily could have been informally resolved without Court intervention.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED.
The Court also notes that both parties request monetary sanctions. The Court does not feel it is in the interest of justice to impose monetary sanctions at this juncture but will do so in the future as warranted.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED.
Both parties’ Requests for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.
DATED: May 8, 2023
________________________________
Hon. Jill T. Feeney
Judge of the Superior Court
