Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 19STCV42761, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

On November 27, 2019, Plaintiff Hyung Koo filed this personal injury action. The Complaint alleges that on November 8, 2019, Plaintiff was severely injured at Wilfit Sports Club when a cable crossover machine toppled over on him.

On February 26, 2024, Defendant Jamison Realty Advisors LLC filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories (CRS #: 442576881556). Defendant filed a separate Joint Statement for each category of discovery.

On February 27, 2024, Defendants Central Plaza LLC and Jamison Services Inc. filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories (CRS #: 441879734044). Defendants filed a separate Joint Statement for each defendant and each category of discovery.

Each category of discovery should have been filed as a separate motion by each Defendant, with separate filing fees and hearing reservations. Despite being scheduled as only two motions and two hearings, the total substance is that of six motions. This unfairly allows the parties to take only two hearing reservations (instead of six) and results in an inaccurate projection and accounting of the Court’s workload, inconveniencing both the Court and other litigants. All parties are ordered not to do this again and are warned that continued action of this type may result in monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

Jamison Realty Advisors LLC reserved CRS #: 442576881556 for two categories of discovery. Jamison Realty Advisors LLC is ORDERED to pay one additional filing fee within 10 days.

Jamison Services Inc. reserved CRS #: 441879734044. Jamison Services Inc. is ORDERED to pay one additional filing fee within 10 days. Central Plaza LLC is ORDERED to pay two filing fees within 10 days.

For any future discovery motions, the parties must file a separate motion for each discovery request, or the Court may strike or deny the motions for being improperly filed.

A Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Payment of Additional Filing Fees is scheduled for April 24, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.

Jamison Realty Advisors LLC seeks to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 16, 17, 20, 21 and Form Rog No. 17.1.

The RFAs ask Plaintiff to admit that Defendant “was not part of a single enterprise with” Central Fitness Partners Inc. or Central Fitness LP, and admit that Plaintiff has no evidence that the Defendant “was part of a single enterprise with” the entities.

Plaintiff’s objections about seeking a legal conclusion are overruled. “[A] request may ask a party for a legal conclusion.” (Grace v. Mansourian (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 529.)

Plaintiff also objected that “[t]his request is vague and ambiguous and fails to provide any context for the admission sought, thereby calling for speculation on the part of responding party. . . . Defendant failed to define what is meant by ‘single enterprise’ and refuses to clarify what the meaning of the same is. As such, this request calls for speculation on the part of Plaintiff . . . .” After objecting, Plaintiff responded, “Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny this request due to insufficient knowledge to respond.”

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel: “As for the RFA 16, 17, 20, and 21, please send me a definition or explanation of the law as to single enterprise, so we know what that phase or term means.” (Kim Decl., Ex. 1.) The next day, Defendant’s counsel responded that he “not agreeable to providing a definition for a legal concept. If your office is not familiar with the singe enterprise theory, then they have the ability to look it up.”

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel again emailed Defendant’s counsel: “You should define the term ‘single enterprise.’ I asked you repeatedly to define what YOU think it is. I don’t understand why you won’t define it and why you insist on keeping your definition of the term a secret.” (Kim Decl., Ex. 2.)

Because Defendant may ask for a legal conclusion, the motion is GRANTED for the RFAs. Plaintiff’s response is insufficient. “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (c).)

As Defendant states, “The disconnect between the Request for Admission responses and [Form] Interrogatory 17.1 (as to Nos. 16, 17, 20 and 21) make the Interrogatory responses void of meaning as they have no context in relation to the Request for Admission responses.”

Central Plaza LLC seeks to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 11-14 and Form Rog No. 17.1. Jamison Services Inc. seeks to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 19-22 and Form Rog No. 17.1.

The RFAs propounded by each Defendant are similar, asking Plaintiff to admit that each Defendant “was not part of a single enterprise with” Central Fitness Partners Inc. or Central Fitness LP, and admit that Plaintiff has no evidence that the Defendant “was part of a single enterprise with” the entities.

Plaintiff’s objections about seeking a legal conclusion are overruled. “[A] request may ask a party for a legal conclusion.” (Grace v. Mansourian (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 529.)

On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel: “I noticed Central Plaza and Jamison Services’ RFAs are nearly identical to that of Jamison Realty. All three use the term ‘single enterprise,’ but none of the discovery defines the term. I know Greg Smith refuses to define the term and has stated that it’s up to responding party to interpret what that term means. Is your office taking the same position?” (Kim Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1.)

On February 26, 2024 (the day before filing the motion), Defendants’ counsel responded, in part: “Single enterprise is a legal doctrine. Your office is comprised of respected trial attorneys. If plaintiff is not pursuing liability under the single enterprise doctrine, the responses should state so. If your office is still considering whether to make a claim for single enterprise, the responses should state so and answer form interrogatory 17.1 accordingly.” (Manji Decl., Ex. F.)

With this clarification from Defendants, and because Defendants may ask for a legal conclusion, the motion is GRANTED for the RFAs. Plaintiff’s response is insufficient. “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (c).)

As Defendants state, Plaintiff’s factual responses for Form Rog No. 17.1 “appear to be a statement of Plaintiff’s entire case against every defendant. It is a chronological timeline pertaining Jamison Services, Inc., Central Plaza, LLC, Central Fitness LLC, TechnoGym USA’s involvement in the creation of the gym, purchasing of gym equipment, obtaining city permits, documents that were signed, discussions that were had, etc. It is impossible to determine which of these facts are relevant to which of the 14 RFAs propounded by Defendant, which of the 200+ deposition exhibits are pertinent to which RFA, which individual has knowledge to a particular RFA, and which of hundreds of discovery responses by multiple parties is pertinent to a particular RFA.”

Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses to Jamison Realty Advisors LLC’s RFA Nos. 16, 17, 20, 21 and Form Rog No. 17.1 within 30 days.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses to Central Plaza LLC’s RFA Nos. 11-14 and Form Rog No. 17.1 within 30 days.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses to Jamison Services Inc.’s RFA Nos. 19-22 and Form Rog No. 17.1 within 30 days.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court