Judge Wesley L. Hsu, Case 22PSCV00024 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

1. Plaintiff Pinnacle Aegis, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One [Re: Jack Ren] is GRANTED. Jack is to provide further responses, without objections, within 30 days from the date of the “Notice of Ruling.” Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $410.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the “Notice of Ruling.”

2. Plaintiff Pinnacle Aegis, LLC’s Motion to Compel Initial and Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two [Re: Jack Ren] is GRANTED. Jack is to provide further response to Nos. 49 and 50 and responses to Nos. 52-136, without objections, within 30 days from the date of the “Notice of Ruling.” Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $235.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the “Notice of Ruling.”

Plaintiff Pinnacle Aegis, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Starting on or about June 2018, Plaintiff’s assignor Wayne Gan began contracting with UCK Electric & Cooling, Inc. (“UCK”) for a series of jobs. There were five contracted jobs total. Jack Ren (“Jack”) was the primary contractor who performed the work on all of the contracts in issue. Jack was not licensed. Defendants failed to complete the work and/or performed substandard work.

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against UCK, Kent Kin Chan (“Chan”), Jack, Diana Ren (“Diana”) and Does 1-50 for:

4. Recovery of Payments to Unlicensed Contractor (California Business & Professions Code § 7031(b))

On May 2, 2022, UCK’s and D. Ren’s defaults were entered. On December 2, 2022, Chan’s default was entered.

The Final Status Conference is set for February 20, 2024. Trial is set for March 5, 2024.

“[T]he propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . . (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[, and/or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) “In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)

Notice of the motion must be provided “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. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction. . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Jack to produce further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (i.e., Nos. 3, 30, 32, 36, 38, 40 and 44). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Jack in the amount of $410.00.

Plaintiff’s counsel Mark G. Shihady (“Shihady”) represents as follows: On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on Jack. (Shihady Decl., ¶ 1, Exh. A.) On September 24, 2022, Jack served his responses thereto. (Id., ¶ 2, Exh. B.) On November 1, 2022, Shihady sent a meet and confer letter to Jack, requesting that further responses be provided by November 10, 2022. (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. C.) Jack never responded to this letter and never provided further responses. (Id., ¶ 3.) The instant motion followed on November 14, 2022.

No. 3 asks Jack to “[d]escribe YOUR relationship with Uck Electric & Cooling Inc. between May 1, 2018 and August 31, 2020.” Jack’s response was, “Shouxue Ren.” Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220, subdivision (a) provides that “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” This is non-responsive. A further response is warranted.

No. 30 asks Jack to “[s]tate all facts which support YOUR contention that UCK performed all, or substantially all of its obligations under CONTRACTS 1 AND 2.” Jack’s response was, “PINNACLE AEGIS, LLC did not to go [sic] to the next step after UCK finished their work.” Jack’s response is unclear as to what “the next step” means and requires clarification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) A further response is warranted.

No. 32 asks Jack to “IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS upon which YOU base YOUR contention that UCK performed all, or substantially all of its obligations under CONTRACTS 1 and 2.” Jack’s response was, “Images.” Jack’s response is unclear as to what “images” he is referencing and requires clarification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) A further response is warranted.

No. 36 asks Jack to “IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS upon which YOU base YOUR contention that UCK performed all, or substantially all of its obligations under CONTRACT 3.” Jack’s response was, “Images and receipts.” Jack’s response is unclear as to what “images” and “receipts” he is referencing and requires clarification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) A further response is warranted.

No. 38 asks Jack to “[s]tate all facts which support YOUR contention that UCK performed all, or substantially all of its obligations under CONTRACT 4.” Jack’s response was, “PINNACLE AEGIS, LLC changed the plan all the time after UCK finished the work.” Jack’s response is incomplete and vague as phrased. Jack has failed to explain what plans Plaintiff changed after Uck finished the work. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) A further response is warranted.

No. 40 asks Jack to “IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS upon which YOU base YOUR contention that UCK performed all, or substantially all of its obligations under CONTRACT 4.” Jack’s response was, “Images.” Jack’s response is unclear as to what “images” he is referencing and requires clarification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) A further response is warranted.

No. 44 asks Jack to “IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS upon which YOU base YOUR contention that UCK performed all, or substantially all of its obligations under CONTRACT 4.” Jack’s response was, “Receipt.” Jack’s response is unclear as to what “receipt” he is referencing and requires clarification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) A further response is warranted.

Again, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Jack in the amount of $410.00 [calculated as follows: 1 hour preparing motion at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee].

Sanctions are awarded in the amount requested, and are payable within 30 days from the date of the “Notice of Ruling.”

Plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling Jack to produce initial and further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two (i.e., Nos. 45 and 46 [further responses], 49, 50 and 52-136 [no initial responses provided]). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Jack in the amount of $235.00.

Shihady (“Shihady”) represents as follows: On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on Jack. (Shihady Decl., ¶ 1, Exh. A.) On September 24, 2022, Jack served his responses thereto.[1] (Id., ¶ 2, Exh. B.) On November 1, 2022, Shihady sent a meet and confer letter to Jack, requesting that further responses be provided by November 10, 2022. (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. C.) Jack never responded to this letter and never provided further responses. (Id., ¶ 3.) The instant motion followed on November 14, 2022.

No. 45 asks Jack to “[s]tate all facts upon which YOU base YOUR Second Affirmative Defense to Plaintiff’s complaint filed herein.” Jack’s response was, “I have already stated all facts in the previous interrogation.” Jack’s response is unclear, inasmuch as No. 45 is the first interrogatory appearing in this set. Again, Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220, subdivision (a) provides that “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” A further response is warranted.

No. 46 asks Jack to “IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS which support your Second Affirmative Defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed herein.” Jack’s response was, “Contracts and receipts and images.” Jack’s response is unclear as to what “contracts,” “receipts” and “images” he is referencing and requires clarification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) A further response is warranted.

Additionally, Jack failed to provide any responses whatsoever as to 49, 50 and 52-136. Plaintiff’s subject discovery was properly accompanied by a “Declaration for Additional Discovery” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.040. Responses are warranted.

The motion is granted in full. Jack is to provide further response to Nos. 49 and 50 and responses to Nos. 52-136, without objections, within 30 days from the date of the “Notice of Ruling.”

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Jack in the amount of $235.00 [calculated as follows: 0.5 hour preparing motion at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee].

Sanctions are awarded in the amount requested, and are payable within 30 days from the date of the “Notice of Ruling.”

[1] Jack’s discovery responses are dated September 23, 2022; the copy of the United States Postal Service envelope from Jack address to Plaintiff’s counsel reflects a postage paid date of September 29, 2022.