Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 19TRCV01128 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 19TRCV01128, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19TRCV01128 Hearing Date: January 11, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 11, 2023¿¿

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 19TRCV01128

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Good World Tea House, Inc. V. Bao Nguyen Company, Inc., et al

¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, Good World Tea House

¿¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Bao Nguyen, but no Opposition filed to either motion

¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None Set.¿

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Set One of Request for The Production of Documents

(2) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Set One of Special Interrogatories

(3) Monetary sanction for each motion

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Set One of Request for The Production of Documents is GRANTED.

(2) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Set One of Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant to provide verified answers to the interrogatories without objection, to provide verified written responses to each category of the documents demands without objection, and to produce the responsive documents by January 31, 2023.

(3) Monetary sanctions for the discovery misuse are awarded in the amount of $1,000 per motion, or $2,000 total.

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Good World Tea House, Inc. (“Good World”) filed this action against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bao Nguyen Company, Inc. (“Cross-Complainant”). This action arises out of Cross-Complainant’s failure to release Good World’s deposit of $100,000 held in escrows opened by the parties for the sale and purchase of Ding Tea House, a boba shop located in Gardena, California (“Subject Business”). Good World’s allegations include, among others, that Cross-Complainant’s failure to release the deposit is a breach of the parties’ escrow agreement after having failed to comply with agreed contingencies (failing to provide financial information to substantiate its sale figures.)

On November 2, 2020, Cross-Complainant filed a cross-complaint against Good World and Eugene Youn (Buyer Cross-Defendants”) and Cross-Defendants, Crown Eddie Plaza, LLC and Edward Yoon (“Landlord Cross-Defendants”). Cross-complainant alleges that Buyer Cross-Defendants coerced him into entering into the business purchase and sale agreement (“Business PSA”) for the Subject Business, breached the said contract and interfered with its lease agreement with Landlord Cross-Defendants. Cross-Complainant alleges the following causes of action against Buyer Cross-Defendants: (1) breach of written contract; (2) fraud; (3) tortious interference with contract; and (4) declaratory relief

Cross-Complainant alleges that Landlord Cross-Defendants, coerced him into entering into the Business PSA with Buyer Cross-Defendants and engaged in unfair business practices by informing him that they would not extend the lease to the Subject Business after the option period ran out and also would allow a competing tea place in the same plaza if Cross-Complainant did not sell the Subject Business to Buyer Cross-Defendants. (Second Amended Cross-Complaint “SACC ¶¶ 59, 75.) Cross-Complainant alleges the following causes of action against Landlord Cross-Defendants: (1) fraud; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of unfair competition law.

On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff served its first sets of Requests for the Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories. Responses were due on June 6, 2022. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has not responded to any of these discovery requests. As such, Plaintiff brings forth this action to compel Defendant Bao to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Production and deem any objections waived. Plaintiff is requesting $1,770.00 each for sanctions.

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed these two motions to compel. To date, no opposition has been filed.

¿¿

¿II. MEET AND CONFER ¿¿¿

¿¿

Plaintiff has asserted that it has put forth good faith efforts to meet and confer. However, Plaintiff contends that opposing counsel has refused to engage in proper meet and confer efforts. (Declaration of Wil Rios (“Rios Decl.”), ¶ 7.)

¿III. ANALYSIS¿¿

¿¿

A. Motions to Compel Responses

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)¿ ¿

Similar requirements apply with respect to document demands under Section 2031 et seq.¿

Here, Defendant has failed to respond at all to any of Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents nor any of the Special Interrogatories. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to its discovery requests and orders Defendant to provide verified answers to the interrogatories without objection, to provide verified written responses to each category of the documents demands without objection, and to produce the responsive documents by January 31, 2023.

B. Sanctions

Plaintiff has requested that this Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿Sanctions are mandatory for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Under the Civil Discovery Act, the Court is only entitled to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” the misuse of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff asserts that as a result of Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Plaintiff has incurred the expense of filing its Motions to Compel, in the amount of $1,770.00 per motion. (Rios Decl., ¶ 8.) Because Defendant has failed to respond to any of Plaintiff’s discovery requests and has failed to engage in Plaintiff’s meet and confer attempts, because no substantial justification has been presented, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000 per motion for a total of $2,000.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿¿

¿¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel responses are GRANTED. Defendant to provide verified answers to the interrogatories without objection, to provide verified written responses to each category of the documents demands without objection, and to produce the responsive documents by January 31, 2023.

Lastly, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions on Defendant in the amount of $2,000. Moving party is ordered to give notice.¿