KOREAN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CITIZENS V. ARIRANG HOUSING, INC.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Date of Hearing:  May 28, 2025 Trial Date:  January 5, 2026 

Department: 45 Case No.: 24STCV26444

Moving Party: Defendant Arirang Housing Inc.  

Responding Party: No opposition   

Meet and Confer: Yes. (Kim Decl.)

BACKGROUND

On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff Korean American Association of Senior Citizens filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant Arirang Housing Inc. for declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunction and accounting. Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff alleges that under Defendant Arirang Housing, Inc.’s Articles of Incorporation, Plaintiff has the right to designate six of the seven directors of Arirang Housing, Inc., but Defendant and its executive Charles Kim refuse to impanel six of the directors from the Plaintiff Korean American Association of Senior Citizens.

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Defendant Arirang Housing Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED

Defendant Arirang Housing Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED

DISCUSSION

Defendant Arirang Housing Inc.  moves for an order compelling a further response to the Interrogatory Form 17.1 of the Form Interrogatories, Set One and Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 31, 32, and 33 of the Special Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions be imposed on Plaintiff and their attorney in the amount of $2,540.00 for their motion to compel further responses to Defendant’s FROG and $1,920.00 for their motion to compel further responses to Defendant’s SROG. 

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”¿ (CCP § 2030.300(a).)¿ “A motion under subdivision (a) [of CCP § 2030.300] shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”¿ (CCP § 2030.300(b).)¿ In addition, a separate statement is required.¿ (CRC”) Rule 3.1345(a)(2).)

FROG 17.1

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s response to FROG 17.1 is evasive and is not code compliant. Specifically, the Requests for Admission at issue ask Plaintiff to admit that until 2007, Plaintiff appointed several directors of Defendant Arirang Housing, Inc., and annually appointed several directors (RFA 4 and RFA 6); that Plaintiff has no corporate minutes or bylaws that predate December 31, 2010 (RFA 77 and RFA 78); that Plaintiff never hired Charles Kim, that Plaintiff never reported Charles Kim as an employee in any filing with the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, or California Employment Development Department, and that Plaintiff never paid Charles Kim any compensation (RFA 79 through RFA 83). However, Plaintiff responds “Not Admit” or “Not Admit, (b) Lack of knowledge”. 

The court agrees. The responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 as they do not answer the interrogatory in a complete and straightforward manner. “Not Admit” or Not Admit, Lack of Knowledge” are not sufficient and do not answer all the subparts of the Interrogatory. 

Accordingly, Defendant Arirang Housing Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. 

As for Defendant’s request for sanctions, the court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1500.00.

SROG 

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s response to SROG Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 31, 32, and 33 are evasive and not code compliant. Defendant maintains Plaintiff makes no attempt to fully answer the interrogatories as the vague reference to a response to a Request for Production of Documents is evasive. Moreover, the statements “This allegation is incorrect” and “Not Applicable” are non-responsive.  

The court agrees. The responses do not answer the interrogatories in a complete and straightforward manner. Referring Defendant to Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Request for Production does not answer the interrogatory. As noted by Defendants, “This allegation is incorrect” and “Not Applicable” are non-responsive.  

Accordingly, Defendant Arirang Housing Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. 

As for Defendant’s request for sanctions, the court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00.