Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00625, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00625    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 December 8, 2022¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  21TRCV00625 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Dipu Haque, et al v. Michael Ball, et al.

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiffs, Dipu Haque, et al.

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       None

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        None Set.¿

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set 7, RE: Power Teas, LLC

(2) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set 10,

(3) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set 1 

¿

Tentative Rulings:                  (1), (2), (3) Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel responses are GRANTED.

¿¿ 

¿¿ 

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

This action involves a self-represented defendant. Plaintiffs are investors in various businesses established by Defendant, Michael Ball (“Defendant”) memorialized in written contracts, wherein Defendant is appointed manager of the investments upon an agreement to provide Plaintiffs with unfettered access to the Businesses’ financial records so that they may monitor their investments. Plaintiffs allege that since 2014, they have invested approximately $20 million in the aforesaid business. However, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has breached his agreements with Plaintiffs by refusing to grant them access to all of the businesses’ financial records.

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff Dipu Haque served ten sets of Special Interrogatories on Defendant via regular mail. Each set of Special Interrogatory concern a different business entity. Defendants verified responses were due November 19, 2021. Plaintiff claims that he has not served responses or otherwise communicated with Plaintiffs or their counsel to either seek a time extension for the responses or explain why he has not responded. (See Declaration of Rosa Kwong (“Kwong Decl.”)

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On March 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed these motions to compel responses. To date, no responses have been filed. Defendant did not file an opposition. IN response to inquiry form the Court at a prior hearing on different discovery motions, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a December 6, 2022 declaration outlining the discovery motions, differences in the number and identify of motions her office shows as being scheduled for hearings and ones the Court actually shows as being on calendar, and other helpful information. 

¿¿ 

¿II. MEET AND CONFER ¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

None. 

¿III. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A.    Motions to Compel Responses

Here, it does not appear that Defendant has filed any response to the 3 sets of motions that are the subjects of the hearings on December 8, 2022. As such, Plaintiffs’ motions are GRANTED. Verified written responses to each of the interrogatories in each of special interrogatories sets 7 and 10, and to form interrogatories set 1, must be served by Defendant on or before January 12, 2023.  Objections to the discovery requests are deemed waived. 

B.     Sanctions

Plaintiffs claim that for each of the 3 motions presented to the court today, they have incurred $450 in attorney’s fees preparing each motion and another $60 in anticipated court filing fees. Additionally, Plaintiffs request $225 per motion for anticipated reply brief, filing fees, etc. As such, Plaintiffs request $735 per motion. No reply brief was needed, but the Court awards $500 per motion for a total of $1,500.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel responses are GRANTED.

¿¿¿¿ 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

¿ 

¿