Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV00533, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00533    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: L

Defendant TZ Global, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses, without Objections, to Requests for Admissions, Set One is DENIED as MOOT. The court awards sanctions to TZ in the reduced amount of $1,260.00, which are payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.

Background    

Plaintiff Yanmin Han (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff, through her daughter, entered into an oral agreement with Defendant Heather Lien (“Lien”) and Luxury Construction, Inc. (“LCI”) and TZ Global Inc. (“TZ”) (together, “Lien Entities”), wherein Lien and Lien Entities agreed to perform various construction improvements (“project”) on Plaintiff’s property located at 18321 Handah Ct., Rowland Heights, CA 91748 (“subject property”) in exchange for Plaintiff’s payment of $110,000.00. Defendant Joe Mun Yan Chou dba Impact Construction Company (“Chou”) is a licensed contractor who assisted Lien to obtain construction permits for the project on the subject property. Lien and Lien Entities thereafter improperly requested more payment from Plaintiff and requested that Plaintiff pay for material that was already agreed to be covered by Lien and Lien Entities, performed substandard and incomplete work and abandoned the project. Lien also falsely represented that she was a licensed general building contractor.

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Lien, Chou, Lien Entities and Does 1-10 for:

1.     Breach of Contract

2.     Intentional Misrepresentation

3.     Negligent Misrepresentation

4.     Negligence

5.     Common Count: Money Had and Received

6.     Disgorgement Under Business and Professions Code Section 7031

7.     Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 7160

8.     Aiding and Abetting Unlicensed Contracting

On July 29, 2022, LCI’s, Lien’s and Chou’s defaults were entered.

On February 28, 2023, a “Stipulation and Order to Vacate and Set Aside Entry of Defaults of Defendants Joe Chou and Heather Lien” was filed.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default and the Final Status Conference are set for October 20, 2023. Trial is set for November 3, 2023.

Legal Standard

“[T]he party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that . . . (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete [and/or] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, 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, 2033.290, 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., § 2033.290, 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 any specific later date to which the requesting 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 further response, 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., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Discussion

TZ moves the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further verified responses, without objections, to TZ’s Requests for Admissions, Set One (i.e., Nos. 1-44). TZ also seeks an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record in the amount of $3,060.00.

TZ’s counsel Grant Chien (“Chien”) represents as follows: On November 22, 2022, TZ propounded the subject discovery on Plaintiff. (Chien Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) TZ subsequently granted Plaintiff with an extension up until December 29, 2022 to provide responses. (Id., ¶ 5). On January 1, 2023, TZ received Plaintiff’s responses via mail[1]. (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. B.) On January 17, 2023, Chien sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel Christopher Lee (“Lee”), requesting further responses be provided no later than January 30, 2023. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. C.) On January 30, 2023, Chien sent a letter in response, advising therein, inter alia, that amended responses would be served; Chien, however, did not identify which responses would be amended and when said amended responses would be made. (Id., ¶ 8, Exh. D.) Counsel thereafter engaged in several meet and confer efforts between February 7, 2023 through February 15, 2023. (Id., ¶¶ 9-17, Exhs. E-G.) No further responses have been provided, as of the filing date of the motion. (Id., ¶ 18.)

The court determines that Chien made adequate efforts to meet and confer and that the instant motion was timely filed.

Plaintiff, in turn, attaches amended verified responses as Exhibit F to Lee’s declaration. It appears said responses were mail-served on March 20, 2023. A cursory review of same reflects that, after interposing objections (which were previously asserts in the initial responses), Plaintiff has now provided a substantive response to each request. The motion, then, is denied as moot (i.e., except as to the issue of sanctions).

Sanctions

Again, TZ seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $3,060.00 [calculated as follows: 4 hours preparing motion, plus 4 hours preparing separate statement plus 2 hours preparing for and attending hearing at $300.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee].

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 $1,260.00 (i.e., 3 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour appearance time at $300.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.