Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCV37556, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37556    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-20-22 c/f 9-1-22

Case #21STCV37556 (lead case) related to 22VEUD00174

Trial Date: Not Set

COMPEL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Hamid Mirshojae

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Ahang Mirshojae

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents

Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 12, 2021, Plaintiffs and Hamid Mirshojae and Woodland Hills Medical Clinic II, Inc. filed a complaint for Breach of Settlement Agreement, Implied Contractual Indemnity, and Breach of Lease against Ahang Mirshojae and 5975-5999 Topanga Canyon Blvd. The subject complaint arises following three separate preceding cases: a January 9, 2017 filed action, Woodland Hills Medical Clinic II, Inc., et al. v. Zelk, et al. (LC105050), a February 3, 2017 and 5975-5999 Topanga Canyon Blvd., et al. v. Zelk, et al. (LC105208), and a March 13, 2019 action, Yadegar v. Woodland Hills Medical Clinic, et al. (19CHCV00214). The LC105208 and LC105050 settled at least in part under an alleged condition that the Ahang, et al. parties “obtain a release” on the 19CHCV00214 action, execute two deeds of trust, as well allowing the clinic to occupy the top floor of the building and parking spaces for business operations. Notwithstanding the agreement, Plaintiffs allege, Ahang, et al. continue to “orchestrate” litigation on the action in order to “extort money from and harass,” and refusal to “approve and sign” the replacement deeds of trust in order to “rectify the defects.” Plaintiffs also dispute the return of certain property belonging to both the business entity and individual. Plaintiffs also allege Defendants refuse to allow the use of the unoccupied top floor or parking spaces “for nefarious reasons.”

On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff 5975-5999 Topanga Canyon Blvd. filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendant, Woodland Hills Medical Clinic II, Inc.

A notice of related cases was filed with 21STCV37556. On March 17, 2022, the court deemed 22VEUD00174 and 21STCV37556 related, thereby leading to the assignment of all cases to Department 47. On March 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge, thereby leading to the reassignment of the case to Department 49 on March 22, 2022. On March 28, 2022, the court specially set a motion for reconsideration challenging the preemptory reassignment from Department 47. The motion for reconsideration was denied on June 2, 2022, and the action therefore remains assigned to Department 49.

On June 9, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer to the unlawful detainer action with 15 days leave to amend. The UD plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on June 23, 2022.

RULING: Moot/Sanctions

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

Plaintiff Hamid Mirshojae moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (set one) from Defendant Ahang Mirshojae. Plaintiff Hamid Mirshojae also moves to deem request for admissions admitted as to defendant Ahang Mirshojae.^[1]

Hamid Mirshojae served Ahang Mirshojae on April 12, 2022. [Declarations of Minh-Van T. Do, ¶ 2, Ex. A.] No responses were received prior to the time of the filing of the motion. [Id., ¶ 4.]

Ahang in opposition represents that responses have now been served. Ahang justifies the delayed responses on grounds that at the time the discovery was propounded, Ahang had not yet appeared in the action. The motion to quash was not heard until August 17, 2022.

Hamid in reply requests sanctions for the costs incurred in bringing the subject motion, which prompted the responses. Hamid also challenges the sufficiency of the responses.

The court finds the subsequent service of verified responses renders the motion moot.

"Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300."

(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

The court accepts the delayed service of the responses until the August 17, 2022 hearing date on the motion to quash, upon entry of the ruling. Still, nothing in the motion justifies the timing of the responses well after the hearing. The responses were not served until September 26, 2022, which is more than a month after the noticed hearing date on the motion and noticed continuance of the hearing. [Declaration of Russel Behjatnia, Ex. 1-3.]

The actions of Ahang and counsel demonstrate the continuing pattern of conduct intended to delay adjudication of the action and increase expenses. The court therefore imposes sanctions in the amount of $750 ($250 per motion) joint and severally against both Ahang Mirshojae and counsel of record for Ahang Mirshojae. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c). 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 408–409.) Payable within 30 days.

The court declines to consider the sufficiency of the responses. Hamid may bring a motion to compel further responses, if necessary, after attempting to meet and confer. The court advises the parties in advance that continued obstreperous conduct regarding discovery, as part of a course of conduct intended to harass, increase expenses and otherwise delay adjudication, as evident from the other law and motion submitted to the court, may lead to the setting of an OSC re: Appointment of a Discovery Referee and significantly increasing sanctions.

As per court policy on this action, the court will no longer identify any future hearings, and directs all parties to refer to the court electronic calendaring system for any inquiries.

Plaintiff Hamid Mirshojae to give notice to all parties.