Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV22643, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22643 Hearing Date: August 7, 2023 Dept: 39
JJ Zhang v. Craig
Chang, et al.
Case No.
22STCV22643
Order #1 of 3
Order to Show
Cause re: Dismissal
Plaintiff
JJ Zhang filed this action on July 13, 2022, and did not serve Defendants Craig
Chang, 1st Reliant Financial Corporation, and Checkered Flags, Inc., in
violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.110. Also, Defendant Craig Chang declared
bankruptcy. The Court issued an Order to
Show Cause re: Dismissal, following which Plaintiff dismissed these
defendants. Therefore, the Court
discharged the Order to Show Cause.
Notice is not required.
Order #2 of 3
Motion to Compel
Further Responses
Plaintiff
JJ Zhang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Harrison Kordestani, Esq.
(“Defendant”) asserting causes of action for malicious prosecution of a civil
proceeding. Plaintiff alleges as
follows: Defendant, an attorney, represented his clients in two different
lawsuits that were settled. (Complaint,
¶ 12.) Plaintiff then successfully moved
to enforce the settlement agreements in these cases. (Id., ¶ 13.)
Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed a complaint for damages against
Plaintiff and other defendants (the “Underlying Action”). (Id., ¶ 9.)
Defendant admitted that the Underlying Action lacked merit but he
pursued it anyway. (Id., ¶ 17.) Plaintiff prevailed in the Underlying Action
and then filed the instant case. (Id.,
¶¶ 18-20.) Now, Defendant moves to
compel further responses to certain Special Interrogatories (“SROG”). Plaintiff served amended response on July 20,
2023. (See Declaration of Dominique N.
Westmoreland, ¶ 11 & Exh. #5.) However,
Plaintiff refused to respond to Special Interrogatory Numbers 36 through 60,
arguing that Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide a declaration that satisfies
the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.050. The Court disagrees. In fact, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration
provides all required information under section 2030.050, and the Court agrees
that additional special interrogatories were necessary, given the nature of this
case.
Therefore,
the Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part. The Court orders Plaintiff to provide
verified responses, without objections, to the following Special
Interrogatories: SROG #41 through SROG
#48 and SROG #53 through SROG #60. The
Court denies both requests for sanctions, as the Court finds that both parties
have been unreasonable in their positions, such that any award of sanctions
would be unjust.
Based upon
the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. Defendant’s
motion is granted in part and denied in part.
2. Plaintiff
shall provide verified responses to SROG #41 through SROG #48 and SROG #53
through SROG #60 within thirty (30) days.
3. All
requests for sanctions are denied.
4. Defendant’s
counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
Order #3 of 3
Case Management
Conference
The Court conducted
a case management conference. The Court
ordered the parties to participate in a mediation, per their stipulations in
their case management conference statements.
The Court sets the following dates:
Post-Mediation
Status Conference: July 22,
2023, at 8:30 a.m.
Final
Status Conference: November
22, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.
Trial: December
2, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.
The trial estimate shall be five (5) court days. The Court orders the parties to comply with
all pretrial procedures for Department #39.
Jury fees shall be posted within ten (10) days or the parties shall
waive jury.
The parties
shall prepare and file joint trial documents November 15, 2023, at 9:00
a.m. The Court orders the parties to
identify all witnesses they intend to call in their respective cases-in-chief,
and identify and produce all exhibits they intend to introduce in their respective
cases-in-chief, on or before November 15, 2023.
Defendant’s
counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.