Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV00831, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00831    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: L

Defendants Carl W. Stewart II’s and Carl W. Stewart III’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff

Reliance Development and Construction, Inc. to Respond to Eight Special Interrogatories

is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Stewart II’s and Stewart III’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $230.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Background   

Plaintiff Reliance Development and Construction, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: In or about August 2021 and January 2022, Plaintiff entered into two written architectural design agreements with Defendants Stewart Design, Engineering & Construction Inc. (“Stewart Design”), Carl W. Stewart II (“Stewart II”), Carl W. Stewart III (“Stewart III”) and RWA Group, Inc. dba Stewart Design and Engineer Inc. (“RWA”) (collectively, “Defendants”), wherein Defendants agreed to provide design and structural plans for Plaintiff’s customers. Defendants failed to provide the designs on time, failed to submit the designs to the cities of Pasadena and Los Angeles, respectively, for approval in a timely manner, failed to respond to Plaintiff’s concerns about design flaws, and refused to conduct a site inspection unless Plaintiff agreed to pay triple the agreed price. Defendant’s design plans did not consider the condition of the existing home and resulted in “support issues” and “sagging.”

On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-50 for:

1.      Breach of Written Contract Dated on August 5, 2021

2.      Breach of Written Contract Dated on January 8, 2022

3.      Negligence

4.      Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Care

5.      Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty

6.      Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

7.      Unfair Competition—Fraudulent Business Practices Under Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

8.      Unfair Competition—Deceptive or Misleading Advertising Under Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

9.      Constructive Trust

An Order to Show Cause Re: Representation of Corporate Plaintiff is set for hearing on May 2, 2023.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Prosecute, an Order to Show Cause Re: Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for $150 Per Party for Failure to Appear April 24, 2023 and a Case Management Conference are set for July 26, 2023.

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

Stewart II and Stewart III move the court for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses, without objections, to Stewart II’s and Stewart III’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two. Stewart II and Stewart III additionally seek sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $460.00.

Stewart II’s and Stewart III’s counsel Tim Harris (“Harris”) represents as follows: On February 16, 2023, the subject discovery was served. (Harris Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel was permitted to withdraw by order entered on March 9, 2023. (Id., ¶ 3). On March 28, 2023, Harris sent Plaintiff a letter, advising therein that Plaintiff’s discovery responses were overdue, that objections to same were waived and that Plaintiff would be given until April 3, 2023 to provide responses. (Id., ¶ 2, Exh. B.) Harris has not heard anything from Plaintiff. (Id.)

The motion is granted. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Stewart II’s and Stewart III’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. Two, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Sanctions

Stewart II and Stewart III seek sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $460.00 [calculated as follows: 2 hours preparing motion at $230.00/hour].

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 $230.00 (i.e., 1 hour at $230.00/hour). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.