Judge Virginia Keeny, Case Number: 23STCV07535, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV07535, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 23STCV07535 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: 45

Hew quon, m.d., eT AL. v. state farm general insurance company, et al.

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

(2) motion FOR AN ORDER ESTABLISHING REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE ADMITTED

Date of Hearing: 1/8/25 Trial Date: 10/6/25

Department: 45 Case No.: 23STCV07535

Moving Parties: (1) Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company

(2) Aaron Vuong

Responding Party: None

BACKGROUND

This is an insurance case. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) refused to cover all loss caused by water damage to the plaintiffs’ office building located at 300 East Main Street Alhambra, CA 91801 (the “Property”). Before the damage, the plaintiffs were using the Property to operate medical practices. In November 2021, the plaintiffs hired a certain company to repair the roof of the Property. After a payment dispute arose, the company left the roof of the Property exposed. In December 2021, a series of heavy rainstorms hit California, causing water damage to the Property, as well as the plaintiffs’ medical equipment and practice. The plaintiffs received damages estimate of $1 to $2 million. However, State Farm refused to cover all losses under the parties’ insurance policy, sending the plaintiffs a check of only $242,281.14. Defendant Aaron Vuong (“Vuong”) was one of the State Farm representatives who communicated with the plaintiffs regarding their insurance claim.

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiffs Hew Quon, M.D., Wanda Quon, D.O., David Quon, M.D., Matthew Quon-Chow, and Victoria Quon-Chow (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit.

On July 14, 2023, State Farm filed a Demurrer to the Complaint. Plaintiffs did not oppose the Demurrer.

On August 21, 2024, the Court sustained the demurrer to the Complaint’s fifth cause of action (erroneously titled fourth cause of action) for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the sixth cause of action (erroneously titled fifth cause of action) for negligent infliction of emotional distress with leave to amend within 20 days.

On September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (erroneously titled Second Amended Complaint) (“FAC”) against Defendants State Farm, Vuong, Dana Booker, Diana Montgomery, Ariyo Olojede, Denise Johnson, Sandra Savala, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, asserting the following causes of action:

(1) Breach of written contract;

(2) Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing – bad faith;

(3) Intentional misrepresentation – fraud;

(4) Negligent misrepresentation; and

(5) Negligence.

On June 12, 2024, State Farm filed the instant motion to compel the plaintiffs’ initial responses to the defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

On June 20, 2024, Vuong filed the instant motion for an order deeming admitted his Request for Admissions, Set One, that was propounded on Plaintiffs.

As of January 3, 2025, no opposition or reply in connection with the motions has been filed.

Jury trial is set for October 6, 2025.

[Tentative] RulingS

The Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Hew Quon, M.D., Wanda Quon, D.O., David Quon, M.D., Matthew Quon-Chow, and Victoria Quon-Chow are ordered to serve their initial responses to Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within 30 days of this ruling. The plaintiffs are further ordered to pay the defendant sanctions of $710, within 30 days of this ruling.

The Motion for an Order Establishing Requests for Admission, Set One Admitted is GRANTED. The Requests for Admission, Set One that Defendant Aaron Vuong propounded on Plaintiffs Hew Quon, M.D., Wanda Quon, D.O., David Quon, M.D., Matthew Quon-Chow, and Victoria Quon-Chow on November 17, 2023, are hereby deemed admitted. The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the defendant sanctions of $385, within 30 days of this ruling.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party has 30 days after service of a demand for production of documents or request for admissions to respond to those discovery requests unless the court, on motion, extends or shortens the time to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (b).)

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: ¶ (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand. …. ¶ …. ¶ …. ¶ (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: ¶ (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. …. ¶ …. ¶ …. ¶ (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

ANALYSIS

Defendant State Farm’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production

Defense counsel Matthew F. Batezel attests to the following facts in support of State Farm’s motion. On September 13, 2023, his office served Plaintiffs with State Farm’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One (the “RPDs”). (RPD Motion, Batezel Decl., ¶ 3; Exhibit 1 – a copy of the RPDs.) At the request of Plaintiffs’ counsel, State Farm granted two extensions for Plaintiffs to serve the responses, making the responses due on November 17, 2023. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 4.) On November 17, 2023, Plaintiffs served responses to Vuong’s discovery, but not State Farm’s. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 5.) Subsequently, State Farm gave Plaintiff additional extensions and Plaintiffs’ counsel stated responses by May 28, 2024. (Batezel Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.) However, as of the date State Farm filed the instant motion, no responses to the RPDs had been served. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 11.)

In light of defense counsel’s declaration and Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the RPD motion, the Court grants State Farm’s motion to compel the Plaintiffs’ initial responses to the RPDs.

State Farm seeks sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record for necessitating the RPD motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c) [“Except as provided in subdivision (d) [inapplicable here], the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust”].)

The Court finds sanctions are warranted given Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery.

State Farm seeks sanctions of $1,035, consisting of 2 hours defense counsel spent on the moving papers, and 1 hour counsel anticipated spending reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply, a total of 3 hours at counsel’s billing rate of $325 per hour (equals $975), plus a $60 filing fee. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 13.)

The Court finds the requested sanctions excessive because no opposition or reply papers were filed.

Therefore, the Court will only impose sanctions of $710 (i.e., 2 hours at counsel’s billing rate of $325, plus a $60 filing fee).

Defendant Aaron Vuong’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

Defense counsel Matthew F. Batezel also filed a declaration in support of Vuong’s motion, attesting to the following facts. On September 13, 2023, his office served Plaintiffs with Vuong’s Requests for Admission, Set One (the “RFAs”). (RFA Motion, Batezel Decl., ¶ 3; Exhibit 1 – a copy of the RFAs.) At the request of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Vuong granted two extensions for Plaintiffs to serve the responses, making the responses due on November 17, 2023. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 4.) On November 17, 2023, Plaintiffs served responses to the RFAs, but the responses were unverified. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 5.) As of the date Vuong filed the instant RFA motion, no verifications to the RFA responses had been served. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 6.)

“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636.)

In addition, a court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, defense counsel has testified that Plaintiffs served unverified responses to the RFAs.

Moreover, there is no evidence before the Court that Plaintiffs have served, before the hearing on this RFA motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with the relevant statute.

For those reasons, the Court grants Vuong’s request to deem the following RFAs admitted.

· RFA No. 1: Admit that AGENT [i.e., Vuong] did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.

· RFA No. 2: Admit that AGENT did not intentionally misrepresent any facts to YOU as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.

· RFA No. 3: Admit that AGENT did not negligently misrepresent any facts to YOU as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.

· RFA No. 4: Admit that AGENT did not intentionally inflict any emotional distress to YOU as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.

· RFA No. 5: Admit that AGENT did not negligently inflict any emotional distress to YOU as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.

(RFA Motion, Batezel Decl.; Exhibit 1, p. 3:2-16.)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Vuong seeks sanctions of $385, consisting of 0.5 hours defense counsel spent on the moving papers, plus 0.5 hours counsel anticipated spending reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply, a total of 1 hour (equals $325), plus a $60 filing fee. (Batezel Decl., ¶ 7.)

Although no opposition or reply has been filed in connection with the RFA motion, the Court finds the requested sanctions of $385 more than reasonable.

Accordingly, the Court grants Vuong’s request for $385 sanctions against Plaintiffs.

CONCLUSION