Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00735, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00735    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-13-22

Case # 21CHCV00735

Trial Date: 3-6-23

COMPEL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Cheryl Gundry

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendants, Sylvia Schenardi

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Motions to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

In 2012, Plaintiff Chery Gundry “formed” Gentle Touch Hospice, Inc. Plaintiff owned 25% of all shares, with Defendants Nenita Dimacali, Sylvia Chenardi and Jose Joe Magpantay owning 30%, 25% and 20%, respectively. In November 2020, the shareholders agreed to sell the entity to a third party hospice care provider for $280,000 with distribution of all net proceeds in proportion to shareholders. In winding up the business, Plaintiff alleges discovery of numerous unexplained expenses, thereby prompting inquiry. According to Plaintiff, said documentation was not provided. Plaintiff additionally alleges the activity of defendants improperly compromised the value of Plaintiff’s shares.

On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Constructive Fraud, Conversion, Breach of Oral Contract (fourth and fifth causes of action), Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Accounting, Failure to Pay Wages and Waiting Time Penalties, and Imposition of Constructive Trust. On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Gentle Touch Hospice, Inc. with prejudice.

RECOMMENDED RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Cheryl Gundry moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories numbers 2.3,, 2.11, 12.3, 14.1, and 50.6, and special interrogatories numbers 1-49. Responses were served on March 10, 2022. [Declaration of Gabriel Padilla, Ex. E.] The motion was filed 90 days from the date of the responses—twice the 45 day limit for filing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c).) Plaintiff presents a stipulation regarding an extension to file the motion to June 8, 2022. [Declaration of Blake Wells, Ex. C.] The court therefore considers the motion.

The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

Plaintiffs moves to compel further responses, due to the provision of incomplete responses to the outstanding items and inappropriate responses challenging the actual language of the judicial council drafted items. Defendants also challenge the objections to the special interrogatories as “legally baseless.”

The unopposed motion is granted. The court finds the objections lacking in merit. Defendant is ordered to serve complete, verified responses to form and special interrogatories without further objection within ten days in compliance with statutory requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.220, 2030.300, subd. (a).) Sanctions in the amount of $250 against Defendants and their attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Motion to compel on calendar for September 14, 2022. March 6, 2023 trial date to stand.

Plaintiff to give notice.