Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19BBCV00181, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19BBCV00181    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          On February 27, 2019, plaintiff Jesse Weiner (“Weiner”) filed this wrongful termination action against defendants Jian-Xiang Shi (“Shi”, aka Morgan), Moregain Pictures, Inc., and Moregain Capital Group.  A First Amended Complaint was filed on April 12, 2019 which added additional defendants: Qinghua Chen (aka Quinn), Fukang Wan (aka Frank Wan/Fakang Zhang), U.S.-China Motion Picture Association dba Fight to Fame (“Fight to Fame”), Sunland Entertainment, LLC, and Jaguar Entertainment Group, Inc.

On June 3, 2019, Moregain Pictures, Inc. and Moregain Capital Group (collectively, “Moregain”) filed a cross-complaint against Weiner and Miaoxin Yu (“Yu”) asserting fraud claims, breach of contract, legal malpractice, and other claims. 

On November 7, 2019, Yu filed a cross-complaint against Moregain. Shi and Fight to Fame.  The operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) was filed on December 10, 2019 asserted various labor and employment claims. 

On September 3, 2020, Weiner filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which also included additional labor and employment claims. 

 On February 7, 2023, Yu (represented by Weiner, who is also appearing in propria persona) filed this motion to compel Shi to respond to special interrogatories (Set One).  Yu also requests sanctions against Shi and his former attorney of record, Michael Chen.  Shi has been self-represented as of January 6, 2023.

Yu’s motion is based on CCP 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.290.  Yu claims that Shi never served timely responses but admits that Shi served “boilerplate and inapt objections.”  However, CCP 2030.210 provides that a party may respond to an interrogatory by “[a]n objection to the particular interrogatory.”  Therefore, responses were served.  Furthermore, Shi’s responses were not objections, but simply disclaimed any personal knowledge which would allow him to respond.  In light of Shi’s responses, even if Yu was unsatisfied with them, Section 2030.290 is not the appropriate provision for this motion.  Rather, Yu’s motion is one to compel a further response under CCP 2030.300.   

Notice of a motion to compel a further response must be given 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.  (CCP 2030.300, subd. (c).)  Shi’s responses were served on November 1, 2022.  (Motion, Weiner Decl., Ex. B.)  On December 23, 2022, Yu’s counsel, Mr. Chen, indicated that his client wished to serve supplemental responses and agreed to do so by January 6, 2023.  (Motion, Weiner Decl., Ex. C.)  However, the moving papers do not include evidence of an agreement to extend Yu’s deadline to file a motion to compel further. 

Furthermore, in an “opposition” brief filed by Mr. Chen, Mr. Chen attaches emails showing that on November 11, 2022, he only agreed to extend Yu’s deadline to file a motion to compel further from 45 days to 90 days, which means that this motion is untimely because it should have been filed by February 1, 2023.  Mr. Chen claims he has standing to oppose the motion even though he is no longer Shi’s attorney because Yu is seeking sanctions against him as well.  Mr. Chen also argues that Yu’s motion is deficient because it fails to include a separate statement.  (CRC 3.1345, subd. (a).) 

On reply, Yu argues that Mr. Chen has no standing to argue the merits of the motion because he has failed to serve all parties with the motion.  Yu also does not retract his request for sanctions against Mr. Chen.  But, even if the Court were to disregard Mr. Chen’s filing, Yu has failed to show that the motion is timely.  Also, as stated above, the motion lacks a separate statement. 

Accordingly, Yu’s motion to compel further is DENIED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 22nd day of March, 2023