Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV29094, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29094    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 12-2-24

Case #22STCV29094

Trial Date: Not Set

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiffs, Salar Benshian, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Salar Benshian, Albert Benshian, and Elham Zarabi, submitted a claim on their homeowner insurance policy following an alleged burglary at their home. Plaintiffs allege policies with Defendants Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company aka Metlife Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc., and Lloyd's of London. Plaintiffs allege a total off $553,700 from both missing property and damage to the home. Plaintiffs allege Metlife denied the claim on grounds of failure to fully cooperate. On September 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for 1. Breach Of Contract 2. Breach of the Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing 3. Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code§ 17200) 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On March 10, 2023, Plaintiffs dismissed Brit Gold Specialty USA without prejudice. On April 12, 2023, Plaintiffs dismissed Lloyd’s of London without prejudice.

On May 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint for 1. Breach of Contract 2. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 3. Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Bad Faith Denial of Insurance Coverage and 6. Discrimination against Metlife Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc. and Kamkar Insurance Agency. On May 24, 2023, the court sustained the unopposed demurrer of Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company and deemed the first amended complaint untimely. The court granted Plaintiffs leave to a file a “new” first amended complaint.

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their “new” first amended complaint for 1. Breach of Contract 2. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 3. Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) 4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5. Bad Faith Denial of Insurance Coverage 6. Violation Of Civil Code Section 51, and 7. Violation of Business And Professions Code Section 17200 against Metlife Auto & Home Insurance Agency, Inc. and Kamkar Insurance Agency. On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff again dismissed Lloyd’s of London without prejudice.

On January 5, 2024, Plaintiffs substituted in Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Policy Number AG19000031-00 for Doe 1. On January 10, 2024, Plaintiffs substituted in Defendant Parviz Aminpour for Doe 2. On January 11, 2024, the court dismissed Kamkar Insurance Agency without prejudice. On January 26, 2024, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy Number AG19000031-00 answered the first amended complaint.

On August 21, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer of Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company to the entire complaint without leave to amend.

On October 28, 2024, a notice of lien was filed in relation to an unlawful detainer action entitled Parviz Aminpous v. Salar Benshian, 21STUD11872.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one), numbers 1 and 2. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The items and responses are as follows:

Number 1: “Please produce whatever Plaintiffs contend was the insurance claim submitted by Plaintiffs or someone on their behalf before Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit under Policy Number AG19000031- 00, as alleged in Paragraphs 28 and 34 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.”

Response: “The Responding Party has made a reasonable inquiry and diligent search and shall produce all available documents responsive to this Request. Discovery continuing.”

Number 2: “Please produce whatever Plaintiffs contend was the insurance claim submitted by Plaintiffs or someone on their behalf under Policy Number AG19000031-00, as alleged in Paragraphs 28 and 34 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.”

No response was provided to this item.

Defendant moves for further responses, but given the unfulfilled promise to produce at the time of the filing of the motion, the court cites to a more specific section: “If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) The court grants the motion to compel compliance with the promise of production under this section.

On number 2, given no response was actually provided, the request constitutes a motion to compel initial responses. The court grants the motion to compel a response to number 2 without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a-b).)

Plaintiffs are ordered to produce documents in compliance with number 1 and provide a response to number 2 without objections, both within 30 days of this order.

The court adheres to a policy that whenever a motion prompts a response demonstrating validity to the motion, the court will impose sanctions in favor of the moving party. Given both the filing of the action by Plaintiffs, no production, and no responses, the court imposes the statutory minimum of $1,000 in sanctions joint and several against Plaintiffs and counsel of record. Payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.050, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (d), 2031.320, subd. (b).)

Case Management Conference, et al. scheduled for December 3, 2024.

Moving Defendant to give notice.