Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV23696, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23696    Hearing Date: May 1, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 5-1-24

Case # 22STCV23696 

Trial Date: 6-17-24 

FURTHER FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Law Offices of L.A. Law Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Shahrzad Shahili

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION 

Plaintiff Law Offices of L.A. Law Inc. alleges Defendant Shahrzad Shahili failed to pay for outstanding legal services rendered in association with a marital dissolution. Plaintiff alleges an outstanding balance of $32,555.57.

On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit for Services Rendered, Account Stated, Book Account, and Fraud. Defendant answered the complaint on October 17, 2022, and filed a cross-complaint against F. Bari Nejadpour, Susan Winchester, and Law Offices of L.A. Law, Inc. on October 18, 2022, for Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, Breach of Contract, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On December 15, 2022, the court denied the motion to strike the one day after the answer filed cross-complaint. On January 30, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the cross-complaint with leave to amend. A first amended cross-complaint for Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, Breach of Contract, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, was filed on February 27, 2023.

On April 20, 2023, the court struck the demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint. On May 30, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint.

On June 20, 2023, the second amended cross-complaint for Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, Breach of Contract, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress was filed. On September 21, 2023, the court overruled the demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action, and sustained the demurrer to the second amended cross-complaint for the first, second and fifth causes of action.

On November 20, 2023, the third amended cross-complaint for Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, and Breach of Contract, was filed. On January 16, 2024, the court sustained the demurrer to the Professional Negligence Legal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Breach of Contract, causes of action without leave to amend, and overruled the demurrer to the fourth cause of action for fraud and deceit. Cross-Defendants answered the third amended cross-complaint on February 15, 2024.

RULING: Granted in Part/Denied in Part.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Law Offices of L.A. Law Inc. presents a motion for sanctions or in the alternative to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) from Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Shahrzad Shahili. Counsel only submits a declaration attesting to health problems, then challenging the motion as untimely, and maintaining the the sufficiency of the responses. The declaration also denies any meet and confer effort. Plaintiff in reply acknowledges the lack of any meet and confer on grounds that because the motion leads with a sanctions request, no meet and confer is required.

The motion for sanctions appears as part of the request for discovery sanctions, rather than a separate motion for issue, evidentiary or terminating sanctions. The court disagrees with the argument that the sanctions provisions in Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050 somehow relieves compliance with any provisions, especially since the section references motions to compel production of documents, rather than special interrogatories. Section 2023.020 only addresses sanctions themselves and also otherwise lacks any basis of authority regarding compelling further response. The court therefore considers the motion to compel further responses under the applicable standard.

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) Moving party admits to an absolute denial of any effort to meet and confer, but submits proof of an attempt notwithstanding the admission to the subsequent lacking effort. [Declaration of William Silverstein, Ex. L.] The motion was timely filed 44 days later on March 6, 2024.

On the merits of the motion, it appears moving party only addresses one of the four items actually within the subject matter of the propounded discovery. The introduction to the motion, points and authorities, and separate statement identifies numbers 15.1 and 17.1, but the corrected declaration of William Silverstein and attached exhibits with the propounded discovery and responses in fact only shows that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories (set two) with checked the boxes for numbers 1, 2.5, 12.1, and 15.1. [Silverstein Decl., Ex. H.] Responses to the four identified items were provided by mail on January 22, 2024. [Id., Ex. J, Proof of Service.]

The responses to numbers 1, 2.5, and 12.1, appear unchallenged in the instant motion. The court declines to address any argument to compel further responses on number 17.1, as there is a lack of proof any such discovery was propounded.

On number 15.1, Responding Party improperly references the answer to the complaint and cross-complaint in response to the request for information in support of affirmative defenses. The response constitutes an improper factually incomplete answer. Responding Party may not refer to prior discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783–784 [“Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, ‘See my deposition’, ’See my pleading’, or ‘See the financial statement’”].)

The motion is therefore granted as to number 15.1 only. Responding is ordered to serve responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.

The request for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, a law firm, is a party to the action and self represents itself in the instant motion. Counsel presents no proof of actual payment or even identification of other outside counsel referred, and otherwise fails to provide a separate breakout of costs. The court therefore denies any recovery of sanctions as a form of recovery of legal fees expended on the instant motion. (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292; Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1020; Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1180.) Notwithstanding, the court can award costs, and grants the request for the $89.89 filing fees on the motion and reply. [Silverstein Decl., ¶¶ 27-28.] Defendant and counsel are ordered to joint and severally reimburse Plaintiff the filing fee within 30 days of this order.

Motion for sanctions on calendar for May 23, 2024.

Moving Parties to provide notice.