Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV38472, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 21STCV38472    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   January 9, 2023                                  

CASE NAME:           Oro Elefante, Inc., v. Los Angeles Jewelry Production, et al. 

CASE NO.:                21STCV38472

MOTION TO COMPEL 

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Complainant Los Angeles Jewelry Production

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of January 4, 2023

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order compelling Plaintiffs to provide responses to the discovery requests

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Compel the Interrogatories and Demands for Inspections is GRANTED.

2.      Motion to Deem RFAs admitted is DENIED.

3.      Motion to Compel Responses to RFA is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff Oro Elefante Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles Jewelry Production dba LAJ Inc., and Said Aframian (“Defendants”). The complaint alleged four causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Conversion, (3) Common Count – Open Book Account, and (4) Common Count – Goods Rendered. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff entered an oral and implied contract with Defendants for the sale of jewelry pieces. Plaintiff performed the terms of the contract, but Defendants have failed to pay the purchase amount.

On January 6, 2022, Defendants filed an Answer.

On January 6, 2022, Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint against Behzad Eghbali.

On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictious/Incorrect Name), substituting Behzad Eghbali for Doe 1.

On May 18, 2022, Cross-Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 6, 2022, Defendant Behzad filed an Answer.

The current Motions to Compel were filed on October 27, 2022. Nothing has been filed as of January 4, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD:

A court is permitted to intervene if a party fails to timely serve responses to discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives any objection to the request, including one based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) The propounding party may move the court for orders compelling responses to interrogatories and demands for inspection. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)  Furthermore, if a party to whom requests for admission have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2033.280.) 

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses).  Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.   

If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) 

ANALYSIS:

            Cross-Complainant moves to compel Cross-Defendant Behzad Eghbali to provide responses to interrogatories, Form, Limited Civil, and Special, and Demands for Inspection and Production of Documents and Things, as well as to have the Court deem the Requests for Admissions as admitted, or alternatively, compel Cross-Defendant to provide responses to the RFAs.

            Cross-Defendant argues that the interrogatories are permissible and relate to the “history of transaction between Plaintiff and Behzad.” (Motion Form 6: 5-10.) As for the Demands, Cross-Defendant seeks “documentation in support of Behzad’s responses to the interrogatories and affirmative defenses,” as well as to allegations in the complaint. (Motion Demand 5: 20-26.) As for the RFAs, Cross-Defendant seeks admissions as to the “various allegations pertaining to Plaintiff’s Complaint here, including but not limited to history of prior dealings, representations and transactions between Behzad and Plaintiff prior to the alleged consignment of jewelry upon which Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action is based, representations made at the time of transactions,…lack of communication between Behzad and Cross-Complainant…defects or shortages of Plaintiff’s goods and complaints raised regarding same, and payment history…among other related issues.” (Motion RFA 5: 23 – 6: 13.)

            The discovery was propounded on Cross-Defendant Behzad on July 1, 2022, with responses due on August 5, 2022. As of October 28, 2022, counsel for Cross-Complainant indicates that no responses have been provided. (Dec. Tabibi ¶ 3.)

Cross-Defendant’s responses were not provided in a timely fashion. This discovery is relevant, and responses are required.. Thus, the Court compels Cross-Defendant to provide responses to the Interrogatories, and Demands for Inspection. However, the Cross-Defendant declares that they have now filed request for admissions, so that motion is moot. 

Motion to Compel the Interrogatories and Demands for Inspections is GRANTED. Motion to Deem RFAs admitted is MOOT.

Sanctions:

Cross-Complainant does not request sanctions. Thus, while sanctions are mandatory, the Court may not impose sanctions if doing so would be unjust. As Cross-Complainant does not request sanctions, the Court will not impose sanctions.

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to Compel the Interrogatories and Demands for Inspections without objection is GRANTED. Motion to Deem RFAs admitted is MOOT.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             January 9, 2023                       __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court