Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 19PSCV00547, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19PSCV00547 Hearing Date: April 17, 2023 Dept: L
1. Plaintiff Tim Ryan Construction, Inc.’s Motion for Order Compelling
Basem Farag’s Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories is GRANTED. B.
Farag is to provide verified responses, without objections, to TRC’s
Supplemental Interrogatories, Set No. One, Set No. One, within 30 days from the
date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced
amount of $368.91 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of
ruling.
2. Plaintiff Tim Ryan Construction, Inc.’s Motion for Order Compelling
Basem Farag’s Responses to Supplemental Request to Produce is GRANTED. B. Farag
is to provide verified responses, without objections, to TRC’s Supplemental
Request to Produce, Set No. One, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of
the notice of ruling. Sanctions
are awarded in the reduced amount of $368.91 and are payable within 30 days
from the date of the notice of ruling.
Background
Plaintiff Tim Ryan Construction, Inc. (“TRC”) alleges
as follows: On February 24, 2018, TRC and Basem Farag (“B. Farag”) entered into
a written construction contract wherein TRC agreed to provide construction
services to the property located at 423 Calle Canela, San Dimas, California
91773 (“Property”) on a “cost plus” basis. B. Farag has failed to make payments
due and owing.
On June 17, 2019,
TRC filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against B.
Farag, Marvet Farag (“M. Farag”), California Bank & Trust (“Bank”) and Does
1-25 for:
1. Breach of Contract
2. Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien
On August 23, 2019,
TRC filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Home Pride Financial, Inc.
(“Home Pride”) was named in lieu of Doe 1.
On January 24, 2020,
Home Pride’s default was entered.
On January 4, 2021,
B. Farag and M. Farag filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action
against TRC and Does 1-25 for:
1. Breach of Contract
2. Unjust Enrichment
On February 1, 2021,
TRC filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against HD-1
Construction, Inc. (“HD-1”), Benito Santana dba Santana Landscape Services (“B.
Santana”), T.L. Shield & Associates, Inc. (“Shield”) and Moes 1-100 for:
1. Equitable Indemnity
2. Contribution
3. Total Implied Indemnity
4. Apportionment of Fault
5. Implied Contractual Indemnity
6. Breach of Contract
7. Breach of Implied Warranty
8. Declaratory Relief Re Duty to Defend
9. Declaratory Relief Re Duty to Indemnify
10. Declaratory Relief
11. Negligence
On February 23,
2021, TRC filed an “Amendment to [Cross-]Complaint,” wherein Miguel Santana dba
Santana Landscape (“M. Santana”) was named in lieu of Roe 1; that day, TRC
dismissed B. Santana from its cross-complaint, without prejudice.
On April 29, 2021,
TRC dismissed Shield from its cross-complaint, without prejudice.
On August 19, 2021,
M. Santana’s default was entered on TRC’s cross-complaint.
On May 13, 2022,
Plaintiff dismissed Home Pride, with prejudice.
On April 14, 2023, after
this court had already prepared for the hearing on this motion, B. Farag filed untimely
oppositions to both motions to compel (which were due on April 4, 2023, 10 full
days earlier). These filings came four days after TRC filed, and served by
e-mail, a notice of non-opposition. Nevertheless, these filings fail to
acknowledge their untimeliness, much less seek relief from it. The court
declines to consider these untimely filings.
An Order to Show
Cuse Re: Default Judgment as to M. Santana is set for April 25, 2023.
The Final Status
Conference is set for November 28, 2023. Trial is set for December 5, 2023.
1. Motion to Compel Re: Supplemental Interrogatories
Legal Standard
A response to interrogatories is due
30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.
(a).) “If a party to whom interrogatories
are directed fails to serve a timely response, . . . [t]he
party propounding the interrogatories
may move for an order compelling response to the
interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2030.290, subd. (b).)
“The court
shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney
who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to
interrogatories, 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 . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
Discussion
Sanctions
TRC
seeks sanctions against B. Farag and his attorneys of record in the amount of $1,943.91
[calculated as follows: 1.2 hours preparing motion, plus 0.8 hours reviewing
opposition and preparing reply, plus 1 hour preparing for and attending hearing
at $625.00/hour, plus $68.91 filing fees].
Utilizing
a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the
court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs
incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $368.91
(i.e., 1 hour at $300.00/hour, plus $68.91 filing fee). Sanctions are payable
within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.
2. Motion to Compel Re: Supplemental Request to Produce
Legal Standard
A response to a request for production
of documents is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) “If a
party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling is directed fails to serve a
timely response to it, . . . [t]he party making the demand may
move for an order compelling response
to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)
“[T]he court
shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd.
(c).)
Discussion
See Motion #1.
Sanctions
TRC seeks sanctions against B.
Farag and his attorneys of record in the amount of $1,943.91 [calculated as
follows: 1.2 hours preparing motion, plus 0.8 hours reviewing opposition and
preparing reply, plus 1 hour preparing for and attending hearing at
$625.00/hour, plus $68.91 filing fees].
Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and
in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total
and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work
performed in connection with the pending motion is $368.91 (i.e., 1 hour at
$300.00/hour, plus $68.91 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days
from the date of the notice of ruling.