Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV04024, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04024    Hearing Date: July 30, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 7-30-24 combined with 7-29-24

Case #: 23STCV04024 (consolidated with lead case 22STCV34045)

Trial Date: 2-18-25

INTERROGATORIES & DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Satila America Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff /Cross-Defendant Rexel USA, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

22STCV34045

On January 15, 2004, Defendants Satila America Corporation, Current Electric, Inc., and Michael James Delaney, opened a credit account with Plaintiff Walters Wholesale Electric Co. (Walters). Walters alleges an unpaid balance due of $125,313.42 as of March 26, 2022. Plaintiff also alleges the filing of a Mechanic’s Lien on an unspecified property.

On October 21, 2022, Walters Wholesale Electric Co. filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Material Sold and Delivered, Open Book Account, Account Stated, Breach of Personal Guaranty, Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien, and To Enforce Stop Payment Notice. Claim. On December 2, 2022, the clerk entered a default against Satila America Corporation. On January 27, 2023, Current Electric, Inc. and Delaney answered the complaint. On the same date, Current Electric, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Wholesale Electric Co. and Satila America Corporation for Foreclosure on Mechanic’s Lien; Breach of Contract; Reasonable Value of Work, Labor, and Services; Quantum Meruit; Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes; and, Implied Indemnity. The cross-complaint alleges a $1,648,185.86 contract for labor and materials with Satila America Corporation for electrical contractor on an unspecified project. Current Electric, Inc. alleges an unpaid balance of $630,168.58.

On March 2, 2023, Satila America Corporation answered the complaint and filed cross-complaint against Current Electric, Inc. for Breach of Contract, Indemnity, Declaratory Relief, Quantum Meruit, Open Book Account, and Account Stated. Satila America Corporation filed a 170.6 challenge which led to reassignment of the case from Department 16 to Department 68.

On June 8, 2023, Satila America Corporation filed a first amended cross-complaint for Breach of Contract, Indemnity, Declaratory Relief, Quantum Meruit, Open Book Account, and Account Stated. On August 8, 2023, the court sustained the unopposed demurrer to the fourth cause of action for quantum meruit without leave to amend.

23STCV04024

On February 23, 2023, Rexel USA, Inc. filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Common Counts, Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien, Recovery on Mechanic’s Lien Release Bond, and Breach of Guarantee against Current Electric, Inc., Michael Delaney, and Satila America Corporation. Rexel USA, Inc. alleges contracts with Defendants for certain improvements to an unspecified project, whereby certain unspecified material were provided with a stated value of $108,108.68.

On August 3, 2023, Current Electric, Inc. and Michael Delaney answered the complaint. On the same date, Current Electric, Inc. filed a cross-complaint for Foreclosure on Mechanic’s Lien; Breach of Contract; Reasonable Value of Work, Labor, and Services; Quantum Meruit; Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes; and, Implied Indemnity. The cross-complaint alleges a $1,648,185.86 contract for labor and materials with Satila America Corporation for electrical contractor on an unspecified project. Current Electric, Inc. alleges an unpaid balance of $630,168.58. Rexel USA, Inc. and Satila America Corporation answered the Current Electric Cross-Complaint on September 7, and 20, 2023, respectively. Satila America Corporation also filed a cross-complaint against Current Electric, Inc. for Breach of Contract, Indemnity, and Declaratory Relief. Current Electric, Inc. answered the Satila America Corporation cross-complaint on October 24, 2023.

On October 16, 2023, the court deemed the cases related.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Satila America Corporation filed three separate motions to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one) and request for production of documents (set one) from Plaintiff /Cross-Defendant Rexel USA, Inc. to be heard on two different dates. The court consolidates the three motions into a single ruling.

Satila America Corporation served the subject discovery on January 18, 2024. [Declaration of William Adams, ¶ 2, Ex. A.] According to Rexel USA, Inc., at the time of the filing of the motion, no responses were received. [Id., ¶ 3.] Rexel USA, Inc. in opposition maintains responses were served following a two-week extension [Declaration of Rea Stelmach, Ex. B.], and the motion is otherwise “procedurally improper” due to a failure to meet and confer prior to filing. Satila America Corporation in reply maintains the extension was solely based on a waiver of any objections. Regardless, Rexel USA, Inc. only served unverified objections, thereby necessitating the motion for verified, objection free responses. Satila America Corporation also denies any obligation to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel responses.

The court cannot determine from the motion, opposition and reply if Rexel USA, Inc. in fact ever served verified responses. The attached exhibits to the opposition lack any verification. Satila America Corporation in reply appears to state that only unverified responses were provided on March 8, 2024, thereby necessitating the filing of the motions on March 19, 2024.

Unverified responses constitute non-responses. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) The motion is therefore entirely proper. No meet and confer requirement

exists for a motion to compel initial responses to discovery, even following service of unverified responses. The court otherwise declines to further consider the impact of the unverified responses, as the court finds no evidence of verified responses thereby allowing substantive consideration of any responses. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

Rexel USA, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories (set one), Special Interrogatories (set one), and Request for Production of Documents (set one), without objections, within ten days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a-b), 2031.300, subd. (a-b).)

Sanctions in the amount of $1,500, which includes the $1,000 statutory minimum required for request for production of documents, plus $250 for special interrogatories and $250 for form interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.050, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c)) Sanctions payable in 30 days and imposed jointly against responding party and counsel.

Plaintiff to give notice.