Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV07239, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07239    Hearing Date: October 11, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     October 11, 2024                   TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         MONARCH LLC v. Total Resources International, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV07239           

(1)   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2)   MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               (1)(2) Plaintiff MONARCH, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1)(2) Defendant Total Resources International, Inc.

CASE HISTORY:

·         03/22/24: Complaint filed.

·         06/26/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a Proposition 65 enforcement action. Plaintiff alleges that first-aid kits sold by Defendant contain Diisonyl Phthalate and that Defendant failed to disclose this information.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

            Defendants are ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories, and for sanctions. As the motions are subject to the same legal standard and concern substantially identical factual and legal issues, the Court addresses the motions jointly in the interest of brevity.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Timing:

            A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).) The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

            Plaintiff’s counsel propounded Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories on Defendant on May 3, 2024. (Declaration of Daniel M. Greenbaum ISO Mot. ¶ 6.) Defendant served responses to the complete set of discovery on July 20, 2024 by mail and electronic service. (Id. ¶ 11; Exh. 5.) Accounting for a two-day extension for electronic service, these motions were due on September 5, 2024, the date these motions were filed and served. Plaintiffs’ Motions are timely.

Meet and Confer

A party making a motion to compel further responses must also include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300 (b)(1).)

Plaintiff’s counsel states his office sent Defendant’s counsel a meet-and-confer letter regarding the discovery responses on August 14, 2024. (Greenbaum Decl. ¶ 12, Exh. 6.) Plaintiff does not state whether Defendant responded to this letter, or whether there was any additional effort to communicate with Defendant’s counsel to informally resolve this dispute. A single letter is not sufficient to demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at informal resolution. Plaintiff has not satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligations. Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the motions to expeditiously resolve this dispute.

Requests for Judicial Notice

            Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Articles of Organization for MONARCH ACTION, LLC filed February 22, 2022; (2) the September 12, 2023 Amendment to those Articles of Organization; (3) the October 12, 2023 Amendment to those Articles of Organization; and (4) a printout of a search report for “MONARCH ACTION” on the official website of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder.

            Defendant’s Requests Nos. 1-3 are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c) (official acts). Defendant’s Request No. 4 is DENIED as irrelevant to the Court’s ruling. (Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 (“[J]udicial notice . . . is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand.”].) 

Analysis

            Plaintiff propounded sets of Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories to Defendant on May 3, 2024. (Greenbaum Decl. Exh. 1.) In response, Defendant served boilerplate objections claiming that the discovery “was propounded by a non-entity in the State of California and non-party to this case and was therefore unlawfully propounded, void and without force or effect.” (Id. Exh. 5.)

            Defendant contends in its opposition to these motions that MONARCH LLC is a non-existent entity and not a party to this case. The Complaint in this action, filed March 22, 2024 originally named “MONARCH LLC” as the Plaintiff. The First Amended Complaint, filed June 26, 2024, clarifies that “MONARCH” is an abbreviation for “Mothers Oversight Network for Actionable Contaminant Harm.” (FAC ¶ 4.) Moreover, the Amendments of Articles of Organization filed with the Secretary of State, which Defendant purports to rely upon in opposition, plainly states that MONARCH is an abbreviation for the name of the entity as of September 2023. (See RJN Exhs. 2-3.) Defendant offers no authority in support of the conclusion that applying an abbreviation of an LLC’s legal name is improper, and Defendant’s bare assertion that an abbreviation is a “fictitious business name” subject to the requirements of Business & Professions Code section 17918 is not persuasive. Defendant’s objections and arguments are wholly specious and without merit. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling further responses to both form and special interrogatories.

Sanctions

            Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, for Defendant’s invalid objections.

            Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

            Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300(d).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Id.)

            Here, Plaintiff’s counsel claims that he incurred 2.5 hours on each motion at an hourly rate of $600, for a total of $1,500 on each motion. (Greenbaum Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff’s counsel offers no evidence or testimony as to the reasonableness of those expenses by, for example, speaking to his legal training or years of experience. Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate that the attorney’s fees sought are, in fact, reasonable. The Court thus declines to award sanctions.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

            Defendants are ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

//

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  October 11, 2024                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.