Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case 20CHCV00166 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20CHCV00166, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00166 Hearing Date: September 20, 2022 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-20-22

Case #20CHCV00166 (Res ID. 8812)

Trial Date: 1-30-23

SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Robert Melgoza, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Emad Younis, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Issue and/or Evidentiary Sanctions and Additional Monetary Sanctions

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Younis alleges entry into an oral contract with Defendants Robert Melgoza, Christy Melgoza, Floating Rain, Inc., and Harmony Dance, Inc. for the provision of “technical” services in association with a “new platform” identified as “FloatingRain.” Although Plaintiff normally worked for an hourly rate, the parties allegedly agreed that Plaintiff would work from March 6, 2012 to March 6, 2017 for a 50% ownership stake in the FloatingRain entity.

Plaintiff commenced developing the project for the five year period and received a rate of $55/hour. Plaintiff alleges a total of 696.7 hours, with a “total contribution exceeding $383,223.50.” Following the March 6, 2017 contract date, Plaintiff resumed billing at $110/hour, but it’s not clear how much, if any work was billed following the contract term. Plaintiff alleges not receiving the promised 50% share.

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff in pro per filed a 19 cause of action complaint for Declaratory Relief, Breach of Contract (second and sixth causes of action), Conversion (third and ninth causes of action), Actual Fraud and Deceit (fourth and seventh causes of action), Constructive Fraud (fifth and eighth causes of action), Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Promissory Estoppel, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamatory Publication—Trade Libel, False Light, Unfair, Unlawful and Fraudulent Business Practices, and Conspiracy to Defraud.

The clerk entered defaults against defendants on May 12, 2020. The court entered judgment for $716,000 on June 16, 2020. Defendants filed their respective motions to set aside the defaults on August 13, 2020. On January 19, 2021, the court vacated all default judgments. Defendants answered the complaint on January 27, 2021.

RULING: Granted.

Defendants Robert Melgoza, Christy Melgoza, Floating Rain, Inc., and Harmony Dance, Inc. move for evidentiary and/or issue sanctions, as well as additional monetary sanctions due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the March 18, 2022, order compelling further responses to Request for Production of Documents. On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff served further responses, which continue to include objections and factually deficient responses. [Declarations of John Bamford.]

Plaintiff in opposition challenges the timing of the motion, the improper scheduling of the motion, insufficient meet and confer effort, and a request for the denial of any sanctions. Plaintiff also represents service of proper, verified responses.

Defendants in reply emphasizes the untimeliness and insufficiency of responses, the timeliness of the motion, and propriety of the subject motion in both scheduling and notice. Defendants also represent a meet and confer effort. Defendants request sanctions.

“Discovery sanctions ‘should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.’” (Young v. Rosenthal¿(1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 118-119 citing¿Deyo¿v.¿Kilbourne¿(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793;¿Newland v. Superior Court¿(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 613.) Evidence or issue sanctions may be imposed only after parties violated discovery orders compelling further responses, except in exceptional circumstances, including where there was sufficiently egregious misconduct regarding a failure to respond to discovery, or a prior discovery order would be futile. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.¿(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1428.) To avoid sanctions, the burden of proving that a discovery violation was not willful is on the party on whom the discovery was served. (Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co.¿(1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250, 252- 253.)¿

While Plaintiff timely served supplemental responses, Plaintiff continues to submit unsupported objections previously determined invalid and lacking in substantial information. [Declarations of John Bamford.] The court therefore finds the improper and insufficient responses demonstrates a willful disregard for the order of the court, and therefore finding for the imposition or evidentiary and issue sanctions. The court therefore excludes any and all evidence and consideration of any and all unsupported claims sought from the propounded discovery, including any and all items addressed in document request 1-48. The court however declines to impose further monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§§ 2030.300,¿subd. (e), 2031.300,¿subd. (i).)¿

Trial remains set for January 30, 2023.

Defendants to give notice.

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-20-22

Case #20CHCV00166

Trial Date: 1-30-23 c/f 4-4-22

SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Robert Melgoza, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Emad Younis, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Issue and/or Evidentiary Sanctions and Additional Monetary Sanctions

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff commenced developing the project for the five-year period and received a rate of $55/hour. Plaintiff alleges a total of 696.7 hours, with a “total contribution exceeding $383,223.50.” Following the March 6, 2017 contract date, Plaintiff resumed billing at $110/hour, but it’s not clear how much, if any work was billed following the contract term. Plaintiff alleges not receiving the promised 50% share.

RULING: Granted.

Defendants Robert Melgoza, Christy Melgoza, Floating Rain, Inc., and Harmony Dance, Inc. move for evidentiary and/or issue sanctions, as well as additional monetary sanctions due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the March 18, 2022, order compelling further responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (set one). On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff served further responses, which continue to include objections and factually deficient responses. [Declarations of John Bamford.]

While Plaintiff timely served supplemental responses, Plaintiff continues to submit unsupported objections previously determined invalid and lacking in substantial information. [Declarations of John Bamford.] The court therefore finds the improper and insufficient responses demonstrates a willful disregard for the order of the court, and therefore finding for the imposition or evidentiary and issue sanctions. The court therefore excludes any and all evidence and consideration of any and all unsupported claims sought from the propounded discovery, including the denied requests for admissions, 4,5, 7-13, 16-25, and form interrogatory 17.1. The court however declines to impose further monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§§ 2030.300,¿subd. (e), 2031.300,¿subd. (i).)¿

Trial remains set for January 30, 2023.

Defendants to give notice.