Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00756, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00756    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On September 29, 2022, Concord Property Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Qiao Liu, dba Noodle Bistro, and Xiaoli Harris, dba Noodle Bistro (“Defendants”).) 

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Harris. (Declaration of Sagheb ¶ 4; Exhibit “C”.) 

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.010, et. seq., and 2017.010 to compel Defendant Harris to respond without objection to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatory, Set One.  Plaintiff requests sanctions of $2,745.41 pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.290 against Defendant Harris and her attorney, Shin P. Yang, to Chiao & Wu, LLP.

On January 17, 2023, Defendant Harris filed an opposition.

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .” (CCP § 2030.260(a).)  The propounding party on a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (CCP § 2030.270.)  If the propounded party does not respond in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses. (CCP § 2030.290(b).)  Where a party fails to timely provide a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may compel a response to its interrogatories, CCP § 2030.290, without need to meet and confer with opposing counsel.¿¿(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants¿(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  Further, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any¿objection¿to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .¿.”¿¿(CCP § 2030.290.) 

            Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Also, “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.”  (CCP § 2030.290(c).)  “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought” and the motion must “be supported by a memorandum. . .and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanctions sought.”¿(CCP § 2023.040.)¿ 

III.      DISCUSSION

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant Harris.  (Declaration of Sagheb ¶ 4; Exhibit “C”.)  Plaintiff did not grant Defendant Harris an extension to provide responses.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.)  To date, Defendant Harris has failed and refused to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts and has served no responses.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶¶ 6-14.)  Plaintiff now moves to compel responses.  In opposition, Defendant Harris contends that objections asserted by Plaintiff in response to discovery served by Defendant Harris had to be ruled on before Defendant Harris would respond to discovery and that Plaintiff is barred from using discovery.  (Opposition; Declaration of Yang ¶ 5; Exhibit 4.)  However, Defendant Harris does not provide support for her arguments.  While a valid response to an interrogatory is to object to it, the objection must state a specific ground.  CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(3) and 240(b).  Defendant’s blanket objection would be valid only if each interrogatory were objectionable, but that is not the case; none of the interrogatories are objectionable on the grounds advanced by Defendant. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b) and orders Defendant Harris to provide verified responses complaint with CCP § 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within thirty (30) days of this ruling.

          Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant Harris and her counsel at the time the discovery requests were propounded and Defendant’s objections were filed (the substitution of Defendant as a self-represented party not having occurred until January 30, 2023), Shin P. Yang, in the amount of $2,745.41 calculated as follows: (1) 3.0 hours preparing this motion and 2.5 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply at the rate of $485.00 per hour; (2) $60.00 for filing this motion; and (3) $17.91 for OneLegal’s charges for each filing.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶ 15.)  The Court does not find that Defendant Harris acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s time expended was excessive. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court awards monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2030.290(c) in the amount of $545 (one hour of counsel’s time plus $60 filing fee) payable by Defendant Harris and her counsel within thirty (30) days of this ruling to Chiao & Wu, LLP.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Harris to respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b).

          The Court orders Defendant Harris to provide verified responses to the interrogatories compliant with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within thirty (30) days of this ruling.

          The Court orders Defendant Harris and her attorney to pay monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2030.290(c) in the amount of $545 within thirty (30) days of this ruling to Chiao & Wu, LLP.

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’s 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On September 29, 2022, Concord Property Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Qiao Liu, dba Noodle Bistro, and Xiaoli Harris, dba Noodle Bistro (“Defendants”).) 

On November 13, 2022, Plaintiff served Request for Production, Set One on Defendant Harris.  (Declaration of Sagheb; Exhibit “C”.) 

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.010, et. seq., and 2017.010 to compel Defendant Harris to respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One.  Plaintiff requests sanctions of $3,472.91 pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2031.300 against Defendant Harris and her attorney, Shin P. Yang, payable to Chiao & Wu, LLP.

On January 17, 2023, Defendant Harris filed an opposition. 

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand . . . .”  (CCP § 2031.260(a).)  The party demanding inspection, copying, testing, or sampling and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (CCP §  2031.270.)  The demanding party may seek an order compelling a response when there has not been a timely response to the request for production. (CCP § 2031.300.)  Further, “[t]he party to whom the demand…is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection of work product . . . .” (CCP § 2031.300).)

          Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Also, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with 2023.010) 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.  (CCP § 2031.300(c).)   “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought” and the motion must “be supported by a memorandum. . .and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanctions sought.”¿(CCP § 2023.040.)¿ 

III.      DISCUSSION

          On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff served Request for Production, Set One on Defendant Harris.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶ 4; Exhibit “C”.)  Plaintiff did not grant Defendant Harris an extension to provide responses.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.)  To date, Defendant Harris has failed and refused to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts and has served no responses.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶¶ 6-14.)  Plaintiff now moves to compel responses.  In opposition, Defendant Harris contends that objections asserted by Plaintiff in response to discovery served by Defendant Harris had to be ruled on before Defendant Harris would respond to discovery and that Plaintiff is barred from using discovery.  (Opposition; Declaration of Yang ¶ 5; Exhibit 4.)  However, Defendant Harris does not provide support for her arguments.  Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the motion pursuant to CCP § 2031.300 and orders Defendant Harris to provide verified responses pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.210 without objection within thirty (30) days of this ruling.

          Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant Harris and her counsel, Shin P. Yang, in the amount of $3,472.91 calculated as follows: (1) 4.5 hours preparing this motion and 2.5 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply at the rate of $485.00 per hour; (2) $60.00 for filing this motion; and (3) $17.91 for OneLegal’s charges for each filing.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶ 15.)  The Court does not find that Defendant Harris acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s time expended was excessive. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court awards monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2030.290(c) in the amount of $545 (one hour of counsel’s time plus $60 filing fee) payable by Defendant Harris and her counsel within thirty (30) days of this ruling to Chiao & Wu, LLP.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2031.300.

          The Court orders Defendant Harris to provide verified responses pursuant to CCP § 2031.210 without objection within thirty (30) days of this ruling.

          The Court orders Defendant Harris and her attorney to pay monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2031.300(c) in the amount of $545 within thirty (30) days of this ruling to Chiao & Wu, LLP.

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’s 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On September 29, 2022, Concord Property Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Qiao Liu, dba Noodle Bistro, and Xiaoli Harris, dba Noodle Bistro (“Defendants”). 

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Harris.  (Declaration of Sagheb ¶ 4; Exhibit “C”.) 

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.010, et. seq., and 2017.010 to compel Defendant Harris to respond without objection to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory, Set One.  Plaintiff requests sanctions of $2,502.91 pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.290 against Defendant Harris and her attorney, Shin P. Yang, payable to Chiao & Wu, LLP.

On January 17, 2023, Defendant Harris filed an opposition.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          “Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party . . . .” (CCP § 2030.260(a).) The propounding party on a set of interrogatories may agree to extend the time for service beyond that 30 days. (CCP § 2030.270.) If the propounded party does not respond in the appropriate amount of time, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) Where a party fails to timely provide a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may compel a response to its interrogatories, CCP § 2030.290, without need to meet and confer with opposing counsel.¿¿(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants¿(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿Further, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any¿objection¿to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .¿.”¿¿(CCP § 2030.290.) 

            Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Also, “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.  (2030.290(c).)  “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought” and the motion must “be supported by a memorandum. . .and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanctions sought.”¿(CCP § 2023.040.)¿ 

III.      DISCUSSION

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant Harris.  (Declaration of Sagheb ¶ 4; Exhibit “C”.)  Plaintiff did not grant Defendant Harris an extension to provide responses.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.)  To date, Defendant Harris has failed and refused to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts and has served no responses.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶¶ 6-14.)  Plaintiff now moves to compel verified responses without objection.  In opposition, Defendant Harris contends that objections asserted by Plaintiff in response to discovery served by Defendant Harris had to be ruled on before Defendant Harris would respond to discovery and that Plaintiff is barred from using discovery.  (Opposition; Declaration of Yang ¶ 5; Exhibit 4.)  However, Defendant Harris does not provide support for her arguments.  Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the motion pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b) and orders Defendant Harris to provide verified responses complaint with CCP § 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within thirty (30) days of this ruling.

          Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant Harris and her counsel, Shin P. Yang, in the amount of $2,502.91 calculated as follows: (1) 2.5 hours preparing this motion and 2.5 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply at the rate of $485.00 per hour; (2) $60.00 for filing this motion; and (3) $17.91 for OneLegal’s charges for each filing.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶ 15.)  The Court does not find that Defendant Harris acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s time expended was excessive. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court awards monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2030.290(c) in the amount of $545 (one hour of counsel’s time plus $60 filing fee) payable by Defendant Harris and her counsel within thirty (30) days of this ruling to Chiao & Wu, LLP.

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendant to Serve to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 2030.290(b).

          The Court orders Defendant to provide verified responses to the interrogatories compliant with CCP §§ 2030.210(a) and 2030.220 without objection within thirty (30) days of this ruling.

          The Court orders Defendant Harris and her attorney to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $545 within thirty (30) days of this ruling to Chiao & Wu, LLP.

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’s 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.