Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: LC064541, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LC064541    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: T

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT

TO: RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN:

YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR in this court on __________________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department T to give any legal reason why this court should not find you guilty of contempt and punish you for willfully disobeying the court order of 7/29/2022 ordering you to "provide the information on the last ten checks you gave to judgment debtor SAYEH KHOEI (“Debtor”) to pay her for services provided to Ghermezian’s firm, RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, APC (“Firm”), to include information as to which banking institution Debtor is cashing the checks, the account numbers that Debtor is depositing such checks into and the amounts of such checks within the past 90 days."

YOU ARE ADVISED that you may elect to enter a plea before the hearing.  If you do not so elect, the court will enter a not-guilty plea on your behalf.

YOU ARE ADVISED that the punishment for civil contempt may include a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment for up to five (5) days, or both, per count.  You may also be charged with attorney fees and costs involved in this proceeding.

YOU ARE ADVISED  that conviction for contempt will require mandatory reporting to the State Bar of California. 

YOU ARE ADVISED that you have a 5th Amendment privilege to not testify.  If you elect to testify, including filing of declarations, those statements may be used against you in this proceeding.

YOU ARE ADVISED that you may be represented by an attorney of your choice at the OSC hearing.

JUDGMENT CREDITORS ARE ORDERED to personally serve this Order to Show Cause on Raymond Ghermezian and file proof of service at least 5 court days prior to the hearing.

            IT IS SO ORDERED.  JUDGMENT CREDITORS TO GIVE NOTICE.
____________________________________________________________________________________

            [TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Assignee/Judgment Creditor Albert and Jaklin Benji’s Motion to Compel Further Response and Production to Request for Production of Documents, Set 1 and the request for monetary sanctions are DENIED. 

            All requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Introduction

            Assignee/Judgment Creditors Albert and Jaklin Benji (collectively, Assignees) moved to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (RPD) from Third Party Examinee Raymond Ghermezian (Ghermezian.)  Assignees further requested monetary sanctions  against Ghermezian in the amount of $6,534.75.  Ghermezian also requested monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,200.00 against Assignees and their Counsel.

            Procedure

            Assignees’ Reply objected to the untimely service and filing of the Opposition.  However, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the Opposition because Assignees’ Reply does not show prejudice and Assignees responded to the merits of the Opposition.

            The parties argued over the veracity of the reasons for Ghermezian’s late Opposition.  The Court is sympathetic to Ghermezian’s loss and does not make any findings as to the veracity of the timing of Ghermezian’s loss.  However, Assignees’ objections as to hearsay regarding Ghermezian’s testimony related to his Research Attorney’s power issues is sustained. 

            Discussion 

            Assignees moved to compel further responses to inspection demands served pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 708.030.  (See Declaration of Homan Mobasser, Exh. 2.)  However, the statute does not apply to third parties.  As expressly stated in the statute, inspection demands may be made upon “any judgment debtor.”  (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 708.030(a).)  “Judgment debtor” is defined as “the person against whom a judgment is rendered.”  (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 680.250.)  Ghermezian and Law Firm are not persons against whom the judgment is rendered.  Assignees failed to meet their initial burden on the motion and the burden did not transfer to Ghermezian/Law Firm to oppose the motion.  The inspection demand was improper from the outset because it was not served upon the proper persons.

            The Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED. 

            Ghermezian requested $4,200.00 against Assignees and their Counsel for misuse of the discovery process.  Ghermezian asserted that he expended seven hours at $600/hour.  However, Ghermezian appeared on this motion on his own behalf.  Ghermezian, an attorney, did not incur attorneys’ fees to oppose the motion.  Lawyers or other self-represented litigants (appearing on their own behalf) cannot recover attorney fees as discovery sanctions.  (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179; Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021.)

            Ghermezian’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

            IT IS SO ORDERED, JUDGMENT CREDITOR TO GIVE NOTICE.