SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT V 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Andrea George, McKenna Warde, and Jaxon Eddy, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Andreas George   

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed  

Motions to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents; Request for Reasonable Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees  

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents. No opposition papers were filed.  

BACKGROUND 

On June 9, 2023, Plaintiffs Andreas George, McKenna Warde, and Jaxon Eddy, by and through his Guardian ad Litem Andreas George (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Jia Lun Shao (“Shao”) and Eya “Rei” Hua (“Hua”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Statutory Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (3) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (4) Violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (5) Private Nuisance; (6) Negligence; (7) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (10) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing; (11) Violation of LAMC § 45.33; and (12) Constructive Eviction. 

On August 22, 2023, Defendant Shao filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Andreas George and McKenna Warde. On February 26, 2024, Defendant Shao filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against the same Cross-Defendants for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Negligence; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (4) Nonpayment of Rent.  

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed and served the following unopposed discovery motions: (1) a motion to compel Defendant Shao to serve verified answers, without objection, to Special Interrogatories, Set One and for sanctions in the amount of $510.00 against Defendant Shao (the “Special Interrogatories Motion”); (2) a motion to compel Defendant Shao to serve verified answers, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One and for sanctions in the amount of $960.00 against Defendant Shao (the “Form Interrogatories Motion”); and (3) a motion to compel Defendant Shao to serve verified answers, without objection, to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $510.00 against Defendant Shao (the “RPD Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). 

The Court will address the Motions in this one ruling. The Motions are all unopposed. Any opposition to the Motions was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) The lack of opposition to the Motions creates an inference that the Motions are meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  

LEGAL STANDARD 

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260, subd. (a).) “If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)   

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) 

Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.  Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(h) states that a misuse of the discovery process includes making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery. A court may impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct under Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771.) 

 

 

THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES MOTION  

Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant Shao’s responses to Set One of Plaintiffs’ Special  

Interrogatories. Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions against Defendant Shao in the amount of $510.00 as to the Special Interrogatories Motion. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Hripsime Martirosyan (“Martirosyan”), declares that on November 7, 2023, Special Interrogatories, Set One, were served on Defendant, and after granting an extension to Defendant Shao to provide responses, Defendant Shao has not provided verified responses to such discovery. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶¶ 3-6; Exhs. A and B.) Plaintiffs are requesting sanctions and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $510.00 as to the Special Interrogatories Motion. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.) Counsel’s hourly rate is $450.00 per hour and one (1) hour was spent preparing the Special Interrogatories Motion and counsel anticipates spending one (1) hour attending the hearing on the Special Interrogatories Motion. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.) Counsel states that “because there are three other motions being heard on the same day, [Plaintiffs] will not be requesting attendance and travel fees.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.) A filing fee of $60.00 was incurred as to the Special Interrogatories Motion. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.)  

The Court finds that Defendant Shao has failed to provide responses to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set One. The Court also finds that the requested monetary sanctions of $510.00 as to the Special Interrogatories Motion is reasonable.  

The Court therefore GRANTS the Special Interrogatories Motion. Defendant Shao is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories within 30 days of the date of this order. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Shao as to the Special Interrogatories Motion in the amount of $510.00, which are to be paid by Defendant Shao to Plaintiffs within 30 days of the date of this order.  

 

THE FORM INTERROGATORIES MOTION  

Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant Shao’s responses to Set One of Plaintiffs’ Form 

Interrogatories. Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions against Defendant Shao in the amount of $960.00 as to the Form Interrogatories Motion. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Hripsime Martirosyan (“Martirosyan”), declares that on November 7, 2023, Form Interrogatories, Set One, were served on Defendant, and after granting an extension to Defendant Shao to provide responses, Defendant Shao has not provided verified responses to such discovery. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶¶ 3-6; Exhs. A and B.) Counsel declares that it took one (1) hour to prepare the moving papers and attendance at the hearing on the motion will take approximately one (1) hour. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.) Counsel’s hourly rate is $450.00 per hour and a $60.00 filing fee was incurred as to the Form Interrogatories Motion. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs are requesting monetary sanctions in the amount of $960.00 as to the Form Interrogatories Motion. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.)  

The Court finds that Defendant Shao has failed to provide responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One. The Court also finds that the requested monetary sanctions of $960.00 as to the Form Interrogatories Motion is reasonable. 

The Court therefore GRANTS the Form Interrogatories Motion. Defendant Shao is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses to Set One of Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, without objections, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Shao as to the Form Interrogatories Motion in the amount of $960.00, which are to be paid by Defendant Shao to Plaintiffs within 30 days of the date of this order. 

 

THE RPD MOTION 

Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant Shao’s responses to Set One of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions against Defendant Shao in the amount of $510.00 as to the RPD Motion. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Hripsime Martirosyan (“Martirosyan”), declares that on November 7, 2023, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, were served on Defendant, and after granting an extension to Defendant Shao to provide responses, Defendant Shao has not provided verified responses to such discovery. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶¶ 3-6; Exhs. A and B.) Plaintiffs are requesting sanctions and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $510.00 as to the RPD Motion. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.) Counsel’s hourly rate is $450.00 per hour and one (1) hour was spent preparing the RPD Motion and counsel anticipates spending one (1) hour attending the hearing on the RPD Motion. (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.) Counsel states that “because there are three other motions being heard on the same day, [Plaintiffs] will not be requesting attendance and travel fees.” (Martirosyan Decl., ¶ 7.)  

The Court finds that Defendant Shao has failed to provide responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One. The Court also finds that the requested monetary sanctions of $510.00 as to the RPD Motion is reasonable.  

The Court therefore GRANTS the RPD Motion. Defendant Shao is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents within 30 days of the date of this order. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Shao as to the RPD Motion in the amount of $510.00, which are to be paid by Defendant Shao to Plaintiffs within 30 days of the date of this order. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.