Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00359, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00359    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: O

HEARING DATE:                 Tuesday, March 14, 2023

RE:                                          GOLDEN GLOBE INVESTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY vs LIN YU FENG SHEU (22PSCV00359)

________________________________________________________________________

(1)   Plaintiff’s RFA Motion

(2)   Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to FORM INTERROGATORIES (“FROGs”) Motion

(3)   Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (“RFP”)

Responding Party: Unopposed as of 3/2 at 1 PM; due 9 court days before hearing [Wed. 3/1].

Tentative Ruling

(1)   Plaintiff’s RFA Motion is GRANTED.

(2)   Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to FORM INTERROGATORIES (“FROGs”) Motion is GRANTED.

(3)   Plaintiff’s MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (“RFP”) is GRANTED.

Monetary Sanctions are TBD.

Background

This case pertains to a commercial rental lease agreement. 

On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Lin Yu Feng Sheu for $120,483.56 in unpaid rents.

On May 12, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer.[1]

On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted.

On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES and MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION.

Discussion

On August 8,2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with the instant discovery requests.

Here, as to date, no responses have been received.

Therefore, absent responses, the court must grant the motions.  

As for monetary sanctions, Plaintiff requests that Defendant pay $1,843.25 for the RFA motion (2.1 hours expended), $952.65 for the FROGs motion (0.8 hours expended), and $1,150.65 for the RFP motion (1.2 hours) [charging $495/hour]. Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances,[2] the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,180 (i.e., $250/hour, 4 hours for all three motions and $60 filing fee/motion [credit card charges are not recoverable]).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the court need not impose monetary sanctions if it finds that the subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Though no opposition has been filed by Defendant to explain why Defendant has not provided responses, the motions themselves do not offer more insight into the matter as Plaintiff’s Counsel did not meet and confer with Defendant. While Plaintiff’s Counsel is correct that it need not have met and conferred, that does not preclude Counsel from having made such efforts. In fact, this court strongly encourages parties to meet and confer, especially when a pro per party is involved. Therefore, if during the hearing Defendant offers a sound explanation as to why Defendant did not respond, the court will not impose monetary sanctions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court grants all 3 motions. The issue of monetary sanctions will be determined at the conclusion of the hearing; if Defendant does not provide an adequate explanation for the failure to respond, the court will impose monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,180.00.