Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 19PSCV00880 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19PSCV00880, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19PSCV00880 Hearing Date: October 18, 2022 Dept: A

Plaintiff Tony To Chong Loo, Cui Ping Loo, and Danny Weising Loo’s MOTION TO COMPEL REPONSES AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Respondent: Defendants Sunwest Trust FBO David W. Free; Steven Goldenberg; LC Equity Group, Inc.; Michael J. Tannenbaum; Oxnard Street, LLC; ZVI Gutentag and Michael Gutentag, Trustees of the Gutentag Family Trust; Sunwest Trust FBO Joseph Davis; Eyal Gutentag and Diane Gutentag, Trustees of the Gutentag Revocable Trust, Dated June 4, 2019; and CDG Investments, LLC.

FINAL RULING

The motion of Plaintiffs Tony To Chong Loo, Cui Ping Loo, and Danny Weising Loos to compel responses and further responses to special interrogatories, set one, is DENIED IN PART as to special interrogatories numbered 1 through 12, 15, and 16, but GRANTED in part as to interrogatories numbered 13 through 14. The court declines to award sanctions to either party.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Tony To Chong Loo, Cui Ping Loo, and Danny Weising Loo allege that Zixi Li (Li) acted in concert with others to use the Plaintiffs’ names to forge, present, and notarize false powers of attorney and deeds of trust in order to obtains loans. On October 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging the following causes of action against Li, Ress Financial Corporation, First American Title Company, Weishi Xie, Agnes N. Nwapa-Jourdan, and the Defendants:

1. Declaratory Relief

2. Cancellation of Instruments

3. Slander of Title

4. Quiet Title

5. Unjust Enrichment

FSC is set for January 3, 2023. Jury trial is set for January 17, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One.

A party may file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it deems the responses are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the responses is without merit or too general. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) and “[i]f an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).)

On July 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs served Defendants with nine identical sets of Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Ensberg Decl., ¶ 2; Chuck Decl., ¶ 2.) On August 3, 2022, Defendants served their responses and objections on Plaintiffs. (Chuck Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to respond to two inquiries from Defense counsel regarding extensions of time to respond, but in two telephonic meet and confer sessions in August 2022, Plaintiffs offered additional time to Defendants, who refused and argued the interrogatories were objectionable. (Ensberg Decl., ¶ 3; Judicial Notice, Ensberg Decl., ¶ 23, 25; Chuck Decl., ¶ 4-6.)

In this case, the Plaintiffs satisfied the meet and confer requirements with the Defendants. The court has discretion to determine the adequacy of attempts at informal resolution and the level of effort required “depends upon the circumstances.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) While Plaintiffs’ counsel admits to missing correspondence from the Defendants’ counsel, counsel for both parties spoke twice on the phone and exchanged letters regarding the issues with the interrogatories propounded. (Chuck Decl., ¶ 4-6.)

For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to compel further responses to interrogatories numbered 1 through 12, 15, and 16, and GRANTS Plaintiffs' request to compel further responses to interrogatories numbered 13 through 14.

Special Interrogatories 1-2

Defendants object to these interrogatories as argumentative, assuming facts, lacking foundation, calling for a legal conclusion, compound, and disjunctive. The court also notes these interrogatories are vague and ambiguous, asking for “content and details of each individual” and “things.” Further, the interrogatories ask Defendants to identify “wrongful conduct,” thus necessitating a legal conclusion.

The court finds these interrogatories objectionable as drafted. No further responses are required.

Special Interrogatories 3-11

Defendants object to these interrogatories as unintelligible, argumentative, assuming facts, lacking foundation, compound, disjunctive, and calling for a legal conclusion. Further, the interrogatories ask Defendants to identify conduct which was a “wrongful cause,” thus necessitating a legal conclusion.

The court finds these interrogatories objectionable as drafted. No further responses are required.

Special Interrogatory 12

Defendants object to this interrogatory as unintelligible, argumentative, assuming facts, lacking foundation, compound, disjunctive, and calling for a legal conclusion.

The court finds this interrogatory objectionable as drafted. No further response is required.

Special Interrogatories 13-14

Defendants object to these interrogatories as compound in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (f). Even though the interrogatories identify three separate properties, the court disagrees that the query is compound since it seeks identification of the party(ies) responsible for approving the loans and recording the deeds. (See Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.)

Supplemental responses by Defendants, without objection, is required.

Special Interrogatory 15

Defendants object to this interrogatory as compound in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (f). The court agrees. The interrogatory seeks “each fact, document and detail” related to approval of powers of attorney used to secure loans on the three properties.

The court finds this interrogatory objectionable as drafted. No further response is required.

Special Interrogatory 16

Defendants object to this interrogatory as compound in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (f). The court agrees. The interrogatory seeks “any fact, document, address, and detail and participation” of Helen Cosman related to creation of mortgages on the three properties.

The court finds this interrogatory objectionable as drafted. No further response is required.

Sanctions

Both parties request monetary sanctions for discovery abuse under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), which states “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.”

The court is not inclined to award sanctions to either Plaintiffs or Defendants. Plaintiffs and Defendants appeared to meet and confer in good faith, and the court found merit with arguments by both sides. These circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.