Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV28077, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

On November 9, 2023, the Court consolidated Case No. 22STCV28077 and Case No. 22STLC06776 for all purposes, designated Case No. 22STCV28077 as the lead case, and ordered that subsequent filings should be under the lead case number.

On November 18, 2024, Green Court Investors (“Green Court”) filed a third amended cross-complaint (“TACC”) against Infinity Plumbing Inc. (“Infinity”), Marco Marquez, and Maria Carmen Marquez.

On November 21, 2024, Infinity and Marco Marquez filed a TACC against Green Court, KLS Financial LLC (“KLS”), and Kim Shapiro.

On November 22, 2024, KLS filed two motions to compel Infinity’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Each motion includes a request for sanctions.

For a motion to compel further, the moving party must meet and confer with the opposing party and file a Separate Statement or follow the Court’s alternative method of outlining the disputes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b); California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).) This Department requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined in Exhibit A of Department 48’s Courtroom Information (available on the Court’s website, www.lacourt.org) and file a joint statement.

KLS’s counsel’s declarations and separate statements make clear that they did not attempt to follow these procedures. All parties are warned not to do this again, and the Court may impose sanctions for subsequent violations.

A party may move to compel a further response to a discovery demand if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.310, subd. (a) [documents], 2033.290, subd. (a) [admissions].)

In the absence of a written agreement between the parties, a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, interrogatories, or requests for admissions must be filed within 45 days after the insufficient response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c).) This deadline is jurisdictional and “renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409-1410.)

Infinity argues that the motions are untimely because the deadline was November 13, 2024. Infinity’s counsel “offered an extension time to further meet and confer/file to November 22 but that was rejected by the counsel for the moving party, who instead demanded an extension to November 27, 2024 which was rejected by this Opposing Party, leaving the deadline at November 13, 2024 and no agreement in place to the contrary with no stipulation ever agreed upon or entered into as required by the CCP changing the deadline to file beyond November 13.” (Opposition at p. 4.) In fact, on November 4, 2024, counsel for Infinity emailed counsel for KLS stating, in part, “this is to grant your client until November 22, 2024 to complete the meet and confer process and otherwise bring their Motions to Compel if they deem appropriate.” (Motion, Ex. H.) Four days later, KLS asked Infinity to “agree to extend the deadline by which I have to file motions to compel until November 27, 2024.” (Motion, Ex. H.) On November 12, 2024, counsel for Infinity emailed counsel for KLS: “Your request of November 8 cannot be accommodated and we must let the November 22, 2024 due date for any motion(s) to compel stand.” (Motion, Ex. I.)

This is a written agreement to extend the deadline to November 22, 2024, and the motions filed on November 22, 2024 are timely.

KLS seeks further responses to Rog Nos. 17, 20, 21, 25-29. Infinity argues that the requested discovery is abusive and irrelevant, largely arguing the merits of the case. (Opposition at pp. 5-8.)

Rog No. 17 asks Infinity to “state the total amount of money YOU paid to each of the Infinity Plumbing employees YOU identified in YOUR supplemental response to Special Interrogatory No. 9” for Infinity’s work on the subject property. Infinity’s lengthy response states that the project was done on a flat-fee basis, so “this responding party has no information or belief as to information responsive to this question as time records specific to this job/project and individual workers specific to the subject job/project were not kept, created or otherwise maintained as such information was not necessary with respect to a flat rate project and not relevant to a flat rate project.”

Rog No. 20 asks Infinity to “[s]tate the reason(s) why YOU did not pay Ferguson Enterprises LLC for the materials YOU purchased for use at the PROPERTY from the $311,500 YOU were paid by KLS.” Infinity’s response states that it “has not failed to pay Ferguson and instead has reached an agreement for a payment plan to Ferguson and is paying Ferguson and has not refused to pay Ferguson,” and it argues that KLS did not pay Infinity.

Rog Nos. 21 and 25-29 similarly provide long narratives that obscure any relevant response and address additional matters not relevant to the requests. These are not “complete and straightforward” answers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)

The motion is granted. Infinity’s objections are overruled. Infinity must provide code-compliant amended responses to Rog Nos. 17, 20, 21, 25-29 within 30 days.

KLS seeks further responses to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 4-12, 15, 17-19. Infinity argues that the requested discovery is abusive and irrelevant, largely arguing the merits of the case. (Opposition at pp. 5-8.)

RFP No. 1 requests all documents reflecting Infinity’s communications with Green Court, KLS, Kim Shapiro, or Stephen Plutsky related to its work at the property. Infinity responded, “This responding party has made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry vis-a-vis its records and has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this request and accordingly, has no information or belief sufficient to enable it to further answer this request or make any production in response and has no present recollection of written communications it had as referenced by the request other than the contract between this responding party which is a subject of this litigation and a copy of which is in the possession and control of the propounding party.” Infinity provided a similar response to RFP Nos. 4, 12.

RFP No. 2 requests all documents reflecting communications between Infinity and subcontractors. Infinity responded, in part, “Not applicable. Subcontractors were not utilized at the PROPERTY. All plumbing work was performed by employees of this responding party and one laborer was used to temporarily patch walls.” Infinity provided a similar response to RFP Nos. 5-6, 10, 17. Infinity “may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer . . . where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

RFP No. 7 requests all documents evidencing any payments Infinity made to and person related to the contract. Infinity’s response refers to a contract between it and KLS, and “the contract Infinity entered into makes no mention of GCI and was entered into only with KLS by Infinity[.] To that end, in the YELP review published by Kim Shapiro, she states she was acting for KLS, further stating ‘We are a family owned and operated management company’ and goes on to state that ‘We hired Infinity Plumbing[.’] To reiterate, this responding party did not enter into a contract as defined by the subject discovery and knows nothing of such a contract and accordingly has no information or belief as to any information or documents responsive to this question given the definition of the CONTRACT set forth in the subject discovery.” Infinity’s lengthy response continues with discussion of the project being done on a flat-fee basis. RFP Nos. 8-9, 11, 15, 18, 19 contain similar non-responsive answers about the flat-fee.

These are not code-compliant responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230.)

The motion is granted. Infinity’s objections are overruled. Infinity must provide code-compliant amended responses to RFP Nos. 1, 2, 4-12, 15, 17-19 within 30 days.

Infinity is ordered to provide code-compliant amended responses to Rog Nos. 17, 20, 21, 25-29 and RFP Nos. 1, 2, 4-12, 15, 17-19 within 30 days.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part. Infinity is ordered to pay total sanctions of $4,000.00 to KLS 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