Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV28077, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28077    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 20, 2023, Infinity Plumbing Inc. and Marco Marquez filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) against Green Court Investors LP and KLS Financial LLC (“KLS”).

On July 21, 2023, KLS moved to compel Marquez’s further responses to Request for Admissions, Set One (Nos. 1-8, 11) and Form Interrogatories, Set One (No. 17.1).

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories or requests for admission if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, if an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or if objection is without merit or too general.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a).)  The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

RFA Nos. 1-3 ask Marquez to admit that he did not suffer any damages due to the alleged defamation.  RFA Nos. 4-8 ask Marquez to admit that he received negative reviews before the allegedly defamatory review.  RFA No. 11 asks Marquez to admit that the allegedly defamatory review was publicly available for less than twelve hours.  Form Rog No. 17.1 asks Marquez to identify all persons with knowledge of facts and all documents that support his responses for any RFA response that is not an unqualified admission.

Marquez argues that these requests are irrelevant because he does not need to show special damages for defamation per se.  He also argues that any prior negative reviews are irrelevant and hearsay.

“The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or cause special damage.”  (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.)  “In an action for damages for defamation per se . . . the law presumes general damages.”  (Finney v. Lockhart (1950) 35 Cal.2d 161, 163.)

Here, there has been no determination that the alleged defamation is in fact per se, rather than per quod.  Cross-Complainants do not allege the exact statements.  (FACC ¶¶ 17-18.)  Whether Marquez suffered actual damages is relevant, even if it is not necessary for him to prove any.  For the prior negative reviews by other individuals, they could be relevant to Cross-Complainants’ existing reputation and whether the statement at issue here caused any harm to reputation.

The motion is GRANTED.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part.  Marquez’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $4,000 ($2,000 for each motion) to KLS within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.

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.

         Dated this 1st day of February 2024