Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV22469, Date: 2024-12-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22469    Hearing Date: December 31, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff Roula Oglii (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Commerce Hyundai, Inc., Rajan Malhotra, Rakesh Malhotra, and Does 1 to 30 for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff monthly profits pursuant to a Management Fee and Compensation Agreement.

On December 26, 2023, Defendant Commerce Hyundai, Inc. dba Commerce Mitsubishi (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with the first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admissions. (Mayville Jr. Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses. Defendant then provided multiple extensions.  Plaintiff provided verified responses on May 15, 2024. (Id., ¶ 14, Exh. E.) The parties attempted to meet and confer, during which Plaintiff requested multiple extensions to provide further responses; the parties also agreed to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel further to July 23, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 17-19.) However, no discovery was served on July 23, 2024.

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel Steven J. Barkin (“Barkin”) filed a notice of disbarment, indicating he was unable to act as attorney since July 24, 2024. However, it appears Defendant’s counsel and Barkin continued to agree to extensions during this time. Defendant’s counsel asserts Barkin informed him of his disbarment on August 1, 2024. (See Mayville Decl., ¶ 21.) The parties then agreed on an extension to September 20, 2024. On September 10, 2024, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter requesting responses. (Id. ¶ 24, Exh. J.) After hearing no responses, Defendant sent Plaintiff an email of the letter on September 18, 2024. (Id., ¶ 26.)

On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff agreed to extend the motion deadline to October 4, 2024. (Mayville Decl., ¶ 27.) Plaintiff then agreed to multiple extensions, with the last being due November 8, 2024. (Id., ¶ 31-37.)

On November 8, 2024, Defendant filed four separate motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production, and Request for Admissions. Each motion also includes a request for sanctions.

Since then, Plaintiff has not appeared with new counsel. Defendant asserts the deadline to file the instant motions was continued to allow Plaintiff more time to find counsel. Plaintiff has received notice of these motions via mail. Nevertheless, no opposition has been filed. 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories 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).)

For Form Rog. No. 1.1, Plaintiff provided no response. Plaintiff must respond.

For Form Rog. No. 2.11(b), Plaintiff responded to sub part (a), but not sub part (b). Therefore, the response is incomplete.

For Form Rog. No. 9.2, Plaintiff provided no response. Therefore, it is incomplete.

For Form Rog. No. 12.1, Plaintiff responded that “Investigation and discovery are continuing” for each subpart. Plaintiff must state whether she lacks personal knowledge, and that a reasonable and good faith effort has been made to obtain the information. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

For Form Rog. Nos. 12.2, 12.6, 13.1, 14.2, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4. 50.5, and 50.6 Plaintiff provided no response. Therefore, they are incomplete.

For Form Rog. No. 15.1, Plaintiff did not respond to subparts (b) or (c). Therefore, it is incomplete.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1.1, 2.11, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.6, 13.1, 14.2, 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6 is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses, without objections, within 21 days. 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

            For Special Rog No. 9, Plaintiff did not state the value of assets that constitute her financial net worth. Therefore, the response is incomplete.

            The responses to Special Rog Nos. 13, 17, and 22 are incomplete since it fails to provide any more detail.

            There is no response to Special Rog No. 20.

            Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 9, 13,17, 20, and 22 are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses, without objections, within 21 days. 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents 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., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)  The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) 

For Request Nos. 1, 3 Plaintiff failed to provide the documents within 7 days, contrary to her assertion in the response. Therefore, the motion is granted.

For Request No. 4, Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the discovery. Therefore, objections are waived. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses, without objections, within 21 days. 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

A party may move to compel a further response to 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., § 2033.290, subd. (a).) 

Request Nos. 5 and 7 fail to state that a reasonable inquiry has been made under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220(c). Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide supplemental responses, without objections, within 21 days. 

SANCTIONS

Each of the four motions includes a request for sanctions for $3,750 per motion, representing a $260 hourly rate, plus the $60 filing fee per motion. Given the quality of the motions, and lack of opposition, the Court finds that the amount requested is excessive.

Therefore, the Court awards Defendant sanctions for all four motions in the total sum of $2,320 (two hours of attorney time, plus the filing fee, for each motion) against Plaintiff.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay these sanctions to counsel for Defendant 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.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 31st day of December 2024