Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 21STCV44323, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44323    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 19

03/04/2025

Dept. 19

Hon. Rolf Treu, Judge presiding 

ALKANA, et al. v. CONWELL, et al. (21STCV44323)

Counsel for Plaintiff/moving party: Larry Fabrizi (Law Offices of Larry Fabrizi)

Counsel for Defendant Raymond Wang/opposing party:  N/A (Motion Unopposed)

(1)   PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET 1) PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT RAYMOND WANG AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,897.50 AS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HIS ATTORNEY (filed 01/28/25)

(2)   PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET 1) PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT VICTOR WANG AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,897.50 AS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HIS ATTORNEY

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ (1) Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Form Interrogatories (Set 1) Propounded Upon Defendant Raymond Wang And For An Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $1,897.50 As Against Defendant And His Attorney; and (2) Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Form Interrogatories (Set 1) Propounded Upon Defendant Victor Wang And For An Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $1,897.50 As Against Defendant And His Attorney are GRANTED in part as follows:

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Defendants Raymond Wang and Victor Wang to compel responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories (Set 1) and orders Defendants Raymond Wang and Victor Wang to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories (Set 1) within 20 days of this order.  

The Court imposes the following monetary sanctions: (1) $656.25 against Defendant Raymond Wang and his attorney, Thomas Sardoni, Esq., jointly and severally, payable within 30 days through Plaintiffs’ counsel of record; and; $656.25 against Defendant Victor Wang and his attorney, Thomas Sardoni, Esq., jointly and severally, payable within 30 days through Plaintiffs’ counsel of record. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d); 2023.030(a); 2030.290(c).)

Counsel for Plaintiffs to give notice.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of alleged fraud and negligence. Plaintiffs Diana Sorges Alkana, Trustee of The Diana Sorges Alkana Trust Dated January 8, 2004 and Diana Sorges Alkana (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Defendants Richard Conwell, Jonathan Edward Clark, Victor R. Wang, Adam Blanke a/k/a Adam Wilder, WWC Corp. dba Keep Your Kets Inc., WWC Holdings LLC, True Fit Real Estate, Inc., 1115 N San Gabriel LLC, SRS Infrastructure, Raymond Chunyun Wang (formerly DOE 1), William James Wilmarth (formerly DOE 2), and Keep Your Keys, Inc. (formerly DOE 3) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1.                  Fraud;

2.                  Breach Of Fiduciary Duty;

3.                  Constructive Fraud;

4.                  Wrongful Eviction —In Tort;

5.                  Conversion;

6.                  Conspiracy;

7.                  Financial Elder Abuse;

8.                  Cancellation Of Instruments;

9.                  Rescission;

10.              Negligent Misrepresentation;

11.              Negligence;

12.              Negligence; And

13.              Declaratory Relief.

On August 14, 2023, Carol Walker Ng was appointed as Plaintiff Diana Sorges-Alkana’s successor-in-interest.

On January 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant (1) Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Form Interrogatories (Set 1) Propounded Upon Defendant Raymond Wang And For An Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $1,897.50 As Against Defendant And His Attorney; and (2) Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Form Interrogatories (Set 1) Propounded Upon Defendant Victor Wang And For An Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions In The Amount Of $1,897.50 As Against Defendant And His Attorney

II. ANALYSIS

A.      Legal Standard

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)¿ 

¿ 

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)¿ 

¿ 

It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; see also Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) (Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.); Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 (noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence).)¿ 

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)¿ 

B.      Discussion

1.      Motion to Compel [as to Defendant Raymond Wang]

Plaintiffs provides evidence that the Form Interrogatories, Set One were electronically served on Defendant Raymond Wang on October 2, 2024 but that Defendant Raymond Wang failed to respond within the time required. (Larry Fabrizi Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)

Defendant Raymond Wang failed to file any opposition, effectively consenting to the merits of the Motion. (See Cal. R. Ct., 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Form Interrogatories (Set 1) Propounded Upon Defendant Raymond Wang.

2.      Motion to Compel [as to Defendant Victor Wang]

Plaintiffs provides evidence that the Form Interrogatories, Set One were electronically served on Defendant Victor Wang on October 2, 2024 but that Defendant Victor Wang failed to respond within the time required. (Larry Fabrizi Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)

Defendant Victor Wang failed to file any opposition, effectively consenting to the merits of the Motion. (See Cal. R. Ct., 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”]; Sexton, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at 1410.)

As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Form Interrogatories (Set 1) Propounded Upon Defendant Victor Wang.

3.      Request for Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c) provides, in relevant part, that:

The 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 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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 provides that:

A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.

(Code Civ. Proc., 2023.040.)

Given the unopposed and therefore undisputed assertions that Defendants Victor Wang and Raymond Wang have failed to provide any responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set One, the Court finds that the issuance of monetary sanctions is warranted.

Relying on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437), the Court finds that the hourly rate of $525.00 per hour is reasonable. (Fabrizi Decl. at ¶ 9.)

The Court finds 1.5 hours to research and draft the motion papers is reasonable. (Id.) However, given that both the motions are identical except for the name of the party [Defendant Victor Wang versus Defendant Raymond Wang], the Court only awards 1.5 hours to research and draft both motions.

Given the lack of any opposition, the Court does not award any hours to  review the opposition.

The Court also awards 1.0 hours to prepare for and appear at the hearing. (Id.)

Thus, the Court awards sanctions as follows: (1) $656.25 against Defendant Raymond Wang and his attorney, Thomas Sardoni, Esq., jointly and severally; and (2) $656.25 against Defendant Victor Wang and his attorney, Thomas Sardoni, Esq., jointly and severally.

III. DISPOSITION

Plaintiffs’ (1) Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Form Interrogatories (Set 1) Propounded Upon Defendant Raymond Wang; and (2) Motion To Compel Responses To Request For Form Interrogatories (Set 1) Propounded Upon Defendant Victor Wang are GRANTED. Defendants Raymond Wang and Victor Wang to provide verified, objection-free responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories (Set 1) within 20 days of this order.  

The Court imposes monetary sanctions in the amount of $656.25 against Defendant Raymond Wang and his attorney, Thomas Sardoni, Esq., jointly and severally and in the amount of $656.25 against Defendant Victor Wang and his attorney, Thomas Sardoni, Esq., jointly and severally. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d); 2023.030(a); 2030.290(c).)