Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 21PSCV01052, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV01052    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: L

1. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Superior Industries, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted is DENIED as MOOT, except as to the issue of sanctions. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $190.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

2. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Superior Industries, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Aurora Chan’s Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Superior’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $190.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

 

3. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Superior Industries, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Aurora Chan’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Superior’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $190.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

 

4. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Superior Industries, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Aurora Chan’s Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Superior’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 20 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $190.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

 

Background   

 

Case No. 21PSCV01052

 

Plaintiff Aurora Chan (“Chan”) alleges as follows: On or about March 19, 2021, Chan entered into a construction contract with Burns & Partners Inc. dba Burns Environmental Service (“Burns”) for the completion of asbestos abatement at Chan’s property located at 2454 Pocatello Ave., Rowland Heights, CA 91748 (“Premises”). On or about April 30, 2021, Chan entered into a construction contract with Superior Industries Inc. dba Superior Restoration (“Superior”) to complete repairs and abate water damage at the Premises. At the time Burns and Superior entered into their respective contracts with Chan and during the performance of the work, Burns and Superior concealed from Chan that they were “unlicensed” in that neither a Responsible Managing Owner (“RMO”) or Responsible Managing Employee (“RMA”) exercised direct supervision and control of their construction operations. Burns and Superior also performed substandard work.

 

On December 17, 2021, Chan filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Burns, Superior and Does 1-50 for:

 

1.      Breach of Contract

2.      Negligence

3.      Recovery of Payments to Unlicensed Contractor (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031(b))

4.      Fraud

5.      Breach of Contract

6.      Negligence

7.      Recovery of Payments to Unlicensed Contractor (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031(b))

8.      Fraud

 

On January 6, 2022, the court deemed this instant case related to Case No. 21STLC06406; this instant case was designated as the lead case.

 

On February 9, 2022, Superior filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Roes 1-50 for:

 

1.      Equitable Indemnity

2.      Contribution

3.      Declaratory Relief

 

The Final Status Conference is set for November 14, 2023. Trial is set for November 28, 2023.

 

Case No. 21STLC06406

 

Burns alleges as follows: Burns performed asbestos abatement services on the Premises, but Chan has failed to pay for same.

 

On September 1, 2021, Burns filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Chan and Does 1-15 for:

 

1.      Breach of Written Contract

2.      Open Book Account

3.      Common Counts

4.      Quantum Meruit Recovery

5.      Foreclosure of Mechanics’ Lien

 

On January 6, 2022, the court deemed this instant case related to Case No. 21PSCV01052; Case No. 21PSCV01052 was designated as the lead case.

 

The Final Status Conference is set for November 14, 2023. Trial is set for November 28, 2023.

 

1. Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted

 

Legal Standard

 

A response to requests for admission is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §

2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a

timely response, . . .[t]he 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. . .” (Code

Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) “The court shall make this order, 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).)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . 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).)

 

Discussion

 

Superior moves the court for an order admitting the truth of each matter specified in Superior’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on Plaintiff on June 20, 2022. Superior also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, Steven L. Rader (“Rader”) of Centauri Law, jointly and severally, in the amount of $950.00.

 

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5 Non-Compliance

 

At the outset the court notes that the Declaration of Tyler M. Costanzo (“Costanzo”) is not made under oath, as per Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Costanzo is instructed to file a corrected declaration at or before the time of the hearing.

 

Merits

 

Costanzo represents as follows: Superior served the subject discovery on June 20, 2022. (Costanzo Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Upon receiving no responses from Plaintiff, Costanzo unsuccessfully attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel, via email, on at least three different occasions in November 2022. (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. B.) On November 30, 2022, counsel telephonically met and conferred without success. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. C.) Plaintiff has not served responses as of the motion filing date. (Id., ¶ 5.)

 

Plaintiff, in response, advises that Code-compliant responses have now been served. (Rader Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The court has reviewed the responses and determines that they are Code-compliant; as such, the court denies the motion as moot, except as to the issue of sanctions.

 

Sanctions

 

Superior seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Rader in the amount of $950.00 [calculated as follows: 3 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour preparing reply and 1 hour attending hearing at $190.00/hour].

 

Rader complains that Plaintiff delayed over 4 months before bringing the instant motion, without warning, and that he had assumed that the parties had stayed activity in the case while engaged in settlement discussions. (Id., ¶ 3). Rader, however, concedes that he did not confirm any such stay on discovery pending settlement negotiations in writing.

 

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 $190.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $190.00/hour). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

 

2. Motion to Compel Re: Form 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

 

Superior moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Superior’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One. Superior also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Rader, jointly and severally, in the amount of $950.00.

 

See synopsis of Motion #1.

 

Plaintiff, in turn, has filed a “non-opposition” with respect to the motion itself. The motion, then, is granted. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Superior’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

 

Sanctions

 

Superior seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Rader in the amount of $950.00 [calculated as follows: 3 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour preparing reply and 1 hour attending hearing at $190.00/hour].

 

Rader requests that any sanctions awarded be reduced, based on his mistaken belief that the parties had stayed discovery pending settlement negotiations.

 

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 $190.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $190.00/hour). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

 

3. Motion to Compel Re: Special Interrogatories

 

Legal Standard

 

See Motion #2.

 

 

Discussion

 

Superior moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Superior’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One. Superior also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Rader, jointly and severally, in the amount of $950.00.

 

See synopsis of Motion #1.

 

Again, Plaintiff has filed a “non-opposition” with respect to the motion itself. The motion, then, is granted. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Superior’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

 

Sanctions

 

Superior seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Rader in the amount of $950.00 [calculated as follows: 3 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour preparing reply and 1 hour attending hearing at $190.00/hour].

 

Rader requests that any sanctions awarded be reduced, based on his mistaken belief that the parties had stayed discovery pending settlement negotiations.

 

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 $190.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $190.00/hour). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

 

4. Motion to Compel Re: Request for Production

 

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

 

Superior moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Superior’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One. Superior also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Rader, jointly and severally, in the amount of $950.00.

See synopsis of Motion #1.

 

Plaintiff has filed a “non-opposition” with respect to the motion itself; as such, the motion is granted. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Superior’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

 

Sanctions

 

Superior seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Rader in the amount of $950.00 [calculated as follows: 3 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour preparing reply and 1 hour attending hearing at $190.00/hour].

 

Again, Rader requests that any sanctions awarded be reduced, based on his mistaken belief that the parties had stayed discovery pending settlement negotiations.

 

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 $190.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $190.00/hour). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.