Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: BC697522, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: BC697522    Hearing Date: May 1, 2025    Dept: 45

MOHAMMAD CHAUDRY, ET AL V. GREENBRIDGE MANAGEMENT CO, ET AL

 

motion for relief from waiver and motion to compel discovery

 

Date of Hearing:        May 1, 2025                           Trial Date:       September 2, 2025

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        BC697522

 

BACKGROUND

 

Plaintiffs Mohammad Chaudhry, Bushra Chaudhry, and Hassun Chaudhry filed this action on March 12, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on April 27, 2018 and a Second Amended Complaint on June 20, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on December 22, 2020. After sustaining a demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on February 22, 2022. Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint (“5AC”) on March 9, 2022. 

 

The 5AC is against defendants Greenbridge Management Company, KTown Metro Plaza, LLC, and Sean Hashem, alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of Written Lease Agreement; (2) Constructive Eviction (Before March 13, 2018); (3) Retaliatory Eviction; (4) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Nuisance; (6) Financial Elder Abuse; (7) Battery; (8) Gross Negligence; (9) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (10) Declaratory Relief; and (11) Accounting. 

 

This action involves a lease agreement dispute between lessees who operated a Flame Broiler franchise and landlord at a commercial space located at 3500 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA. Plaintiffs allege that there were several issues with how Defendants maintained and repaired the common areas, prolonged construction of a food hall near Plaintiffs’ premises, and wrongfully denied Plaintiffs from assigning the lease or changing the use of the premises. 

 

On September 21, 2018, Ktown Metro Plaza LLC filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract. Ktown Metro dismissed the cross-complaint on January 22, 2020.        

 

[Tentative] Ruling

 

Plaintiffs Mohammad Chaudhry and Bushra Chaudhry’s Motion for Relief from Waiver are GRANTED. Plaintiff Hassun Chaudry’s Motion for Relief from Waiver is DENIED.

 

Defendant Greenbridge Management Company’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses is MOOT, in part; GRANTED, in part.

 

DISCUSSION

 

I.                    MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER

 

Plaintiffs Mohammad Chaudhry, Hassun Chaudhry, and Bushra Chaudhry move the court for relief from the waiver of objections for the responses of Plaintiffs Mohammad and Hassun Chaudry to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two) as well as Bushra Chaudry to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One). Plaintiffs also request protective orders to limit Defendants’ discovery requests to information that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case; prevent harassment of Plaintiffs’ family members through overbroad and burdensome discovery requests; and protect Plaintiff Hassun Chaudhry from discovery requests that Defendants could obtain through their own diligence, invoking the principle of equitable estoppel.

 

A party to whom interrogatories or requests for production are propounded waives their right to object to the requests if they failed to serve a timely response. However, a party may be relieved of that waiver if the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance and the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP §2030.290(a); 2031.300(a).)

¿¿ 

The statutory language “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” in the discovery statute should be interpreted using the same general principles developed in application of the identical language in section 473, subdivision (b). (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 275.) Although the party moving for relief under section 473 has the burden to show that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was excusable, any doubts as to that showing must be resolved in favor of the moving party. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)¿¿ 

 

The courts have ruled that substantial compliance is dependent on the meaning and purpose of the statute. (Freeman v. Vista de Santa Barbara Associates LP (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 791, 793.) For example, a proposed response to requests for admission are substantially compliant where the responses were verified, contained responses to a majority of responses, and were served before the hearing on a motion to compel. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 782.) Such responses may not have complied with all statutory requirements, but constituted facially good-faith efforts to respond to the requests for admissions that is substantially code compliant. (Id.) 

 

Plaintiffs Mohammad Chaudhry, Hassun Chaudhry, and Bushra Chaudhry seek relief from waiver on the grounds Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to certain discovery requests was the result of the abrupt withdrawal of their former counsel, Cyrus Khosh-Chashm, due to health issues even though he assured them he would continue to represent Plaintiffs until the court ruled on his motion to withdraw. Plaintiffs maintain they have since acted in good faith to rectify the situation by preparing and serving verified responses, subject to valid objections. Plaintiffs also argue despite Defendants being aware of Plaintiffs’ situation, defendants made no effort to compel responses until after Khosh-Chashm was relieved as counsel on January 13, 2025—nearly three months after the discovery responses were due.

 

Defendant Greenbridge Management Company opposes the motions on the grounds Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any excusable neglect. Defendant maintains Plaintiff Hassun has been self-represented in this matter since October 2024 and Defendant served the discovery at issue separate from Plaintiff Mohammad and Bushra. As a result, Hassun has demonstrated no excuse for his failure to respond. Moreover, Plaintiff Mohammad and Bushra also have not made a showing of excusable neglect as their counsel was fully aware of the obligation to respond to properly served discovery.

 

The court finds excusable neglect as to Plaintiff Mohammad and Bushra. As noted above, any doubts as to a showing of excusable neglect must be resolved in favor of the moving party. Counsel for Plaintiff abruptly quit due to health concerns after the discovery was propounded. This is sufficient to grant relief from waiver of objections. However, Plaintiff Hassun has not had counsel and does not provide how Counsel’s abrupt departure due to health concerns affected his response to the discovery.

 

The court notes Plaintiffs make a judicial estoppel and equitable estoppel argument. These appear to go to Plaintiffs argument for a protective order. However, the court finds Plaintiffs improperly moved for a protective order when seeking relief from waiver of objections. Plaintiffs must file a separate motion for protective order. The court notes, however, Plaintiff Hassun does not have a right to act on the other Plaintiffs behalf as he is not an attorney.

 

The court further notes Plaintiffs have attached their responses, which are substantially code compliant. 

 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Mohammad and Bushra’s Motions for Relief from Waiver of Objections is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Hassun’s Motions for Relief from Waiver of Objections is DENIED.

 

II.                  MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

 

Defendant Greenbridge Management Company moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiffs Mohammad Chaudry and Hassun Chaudry to serve full and complete verified answers, without objections, to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Two) as well as compelling Plaintiff Bushra Chaudhry to serve full and complete verified answers, without objections, to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One). Defendant also seeks sanctions against Plaintiffs.

 

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; 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. (CCP §§2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may also 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. (CCP § 2033.280(b).)

 

As noted above, the court has granted Plaintiffs Mohammad and Bushra’s motion for relief from waiver. Accordingly, the court finds Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs Mohammad and Bushra’s responses MOOT.

 

As for Plaintiff Hassun, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff Hassun’s responses to Request for Production (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set Two).

 

As for the request for sanctions, the court DENIES Defendant’s request for sanctions. This motion could have been avoided by defendant awaiting the ruling on plaintiff’s motion.  

 




Website by Triangulus