Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2020-01162978 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2020-01162978, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Motion No. 1:

Defendants’ (Hassan Kahefipour and Zarrinkelk, Kashefipour & Co.) unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Meridian PO Finance LLC to Serve Further Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Special Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 5-12-22 under ROA No. 247, is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides in pertinent part: “(a) 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. (b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 . . . (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.”

Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 683, states, “Section 2030 provides that once answers and objections have been filed, a motion to compel further responses must be filed within 30 days after receipt of the answers or the right to compel is waived. This statute is mandatory and the court may not entertain a belated motion to compel. [Citations.]” Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410, states, “We do not believe the 45-day limitation is ‘jurisdictional’ in the fundamental sense, but is only ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.”

Here, Plaintiff (Meridian PO Finance, LLC) served responses to Defendants' First Sets of Special Interrogatories on 1-28-22. (Smith Decl., ¶ 8; Exhibit 2.) Defendant did not attach a proof of service or indicate the method of service. (Smith Decl., ¶ 8; Exhibit 2.) The 45^th day from 1-28-22 was 3-14-22. At most, this deadline to compel would have been extended 5 days for service by way of mail. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013 subd. (a).) This would make the deadline 3-19-22, which was a Saturday. Thus, the deadline would have been 3-21-22. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 12 and 12a.)

Defendants did not initiate a meet and confer until 4-6-22. (Smith Decl. ¶ 10 and Exhibit 4.) It appears the parties agreed on 4-12-22 to “extend” the deadline to move to compel to 4-29-22 (Smith Decl. ¶ 11 and Exhibit 5.) The parties again agreed to “extend” deadline to move to compel to 5-13-22. (Smith Decl. ¶ 12 and Exhibit 5.) The 45-day deadline, however, could not be extended because it had already passed before Defendant began the meet and confer process. Therefore, the court does not have the authority to rule on this Motion.

Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendants’ (Hassan Kahefipour and Zarrinkelk, Kashefipour & Co.) unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Meridian PO Finance LLC to Serve Further Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Special Interrogatories filed on 5-12-22 under ROA No. 247.

Defendants are to give notice.

Motion No. 2:

Defendants’ (Hassan Kahefipour and Zarrinkelk, Kashefipour & Co.) unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Breakaway Capital Management, LLC to Serve Further Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Special Interrogatories (Motion), filed on 5-12-22 under ROA No. 246, is DENIED.

Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 683, states, “Section 2030 provides that once answers and objections have been filed, a motion to compel further responses must be filed within 30 days after receipt of the answers or the right to compel is waived. This statute is mandatory and the court may not entertain a belated motion to compel. [Citations.]” Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4^th 1403, 1410, states, “We do not believe the 45-day limitation is ‘jurisdictional’ in the fundamental sense, but is only ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.”

Here, Plaintiff (Breakaway Capital Management, LLC) served responses to Defendants' First Sets of Special Interrogatories on 1-28-22. (Smith Decl., ¶ 8; Exhibit 3.) Defendant did not attach a proof of service or indicate the method of service. (Smith Decl., ¶ 8; Exhibit 3.) The 45^th day from 1-28-22 was 3-14-22. At most, this deadline to compel would have been extended 5 days for service by way of mail. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013 subd. (a).) This would make the deadline 3-19-22, which was a Saturday. Thus, the deadline would have been 3-21-22. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 12 and 12a.)

Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendants’ (Hassan Kahefipour and Zarrinkelk, Kashefipour & Co.) unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff Breakaway Capital Management, LLC to Serve Further Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Special Interrogatories filed on 5-12-22 under ROA No. 246.

Defendants are to give notice.