Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV40932, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40932    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   December
21, 2022                                        

CASE NAME:           The J Fund, A General Partnership, et
al. v. Jaime Reyes

CASE NO.:                21STCV40932

DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL  

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jaime Reyes

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs J Fund,

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An
order compelling Plaintiffs to provide responses to the discovery requests:
Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, RFAs, and RPDs[1]

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion
to Compel is MOOT, as to all motions

2.      Request
for Sanctions is GRANTED, in the amount of $1,541.65

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs The J Fund, Ramon Reyes, Ken
Nguyen, Daniel Kantor, Ken Chanlee, and Josh Barandon (“Plaintiffs”) filed a
complaint against Defendant Jaime Reyes (“Defendant.”) The complaint alleged
six causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (3)
Conversion, (4) Fraud, (5) Unjust Enrichment, and (6) For an Accounting. The
complaint alleges that the parties formed a partnership to jointly invest in
cryptocurrency. However, Plaintiffs discovered that Defendant Reyes
misrepresented his efforts to purchase cryptocurrency, hidden profits made by
the partnership, and did not make scheduled reports and profit payments to the
partnership.

On February 25, 2022, Defendant Jaime Reyes filed an Answer
and a Cross-Complaint.

On April 1, 2022, Cross-Defendants Ramon Reyes, Ken Nguyen,
Josh Barandon, Daniel Kantor, and Ken Chanlee filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On October 7, 2022, Defendant filed 3 Motions to Compel
Responses, 1 for RPDs, 1 for Form Interrogatories, and 1 for Special
Interrogatories. Additionally, Defendant filed a Motion to Deem Request for
Admissions Admitted. Plaintiff’s Opposition was filed on December 8, 2022.
Defendant’s Reply was filed on December 15, 2022.  

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:

Defendant moves to compel
Plaintiffs to provide responses, without objections, to the various discovery
that was served on Plaintiffs. These requests include: Requests for Production,
Requests for Admissions, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories.

These discovery requests were
served on June 7, 2022, with responses due on July 9, 2022. Plaintiff requested
various extensions, which Defendant granted on numerous occasions. However, on
September 15, 2022, Defendant’s emailed Plaintiff’s counsel stating that
discovery responses were due and a motion to compel would be filed if the
responses were not provided by September 23, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel
indicated that responses were incomplete and would be coming. As of November 7,
2022, Plaintiff had failed to serve the requested discovery.

Plaintiff’s counsel filed an Opposition
and Declaration, where counsel indicated that due to mistake and inadvertence,
Plaintiff’s counsel failed to obtain a specific agreement for another continuance.
(Dec. French ¶ 3.) Additionally, personal matters made providing a timely
response difficult. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

            On December 15, 2022, Defendant filed
a consolidated reply and a declaration. In it, Defendant’s counsel indicates
that they received Plaintiffs’ discovery responses on December 15, 2022. The
day before, Defendant’s counsel spoke with Plaintiff’s counsel who indicated
responses would be filed and requested a delay in filing the reply to reflect
this information. (Dec. Daneshi ¶ 2.) While Defendant’s counsel does not refute
that th responses were served, sanctions should still be awarded. (Reply 2:
10-27.)

The Court finds that this matter is
MOOT, as Defendant’s counsel has indicated responses have been served. While
sanctions now may not be awarded for Requests for Production, Form
Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories, sanctions are mandatory for
failing to timely serve responses for Requests for Admissions pursuant to CCP §
2033.280(c).

Defendant’s counsel requests $1,541.65
for the Requests for Admissions. These are based on an hourly rate of $400 at
2.2 hours of work. Additionally, counsel adds an additional 1.5 hours for
drafting the reply for each motion. In light of the history of this case, the
Court finds the amount requested as reasonable. Therefore, the total amount of
fees is granted in the amount of $1,541.65.

Conclusion:

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

Motion Compel Responses is MOOT.

Request for Sanctions against
Plaintiff’s counsel is GRANTED in the amount of $1,541.65 payable within 30
days of service of this order.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             December
21, 2022                 _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder
S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge
of the Superior Court