Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 21STCV09943 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV09943, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09943 Hearing Date: April 25, 2023 Dept: 31

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AS TO THOMAS NORRIS; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AS TO THOMAS NORRIS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Leslie H. Winner

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Thomas Norris

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AS TO THOMAS NORRIS; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AS TO THOMAS NORRIS

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Thomas Norris’ response to Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $1,141.85 against Defendant Thomas Norris.

Background

On March 12, 2021, Plaintiffs 910 Torrance Blvd., LLC, Leslie H. Winner, and Lynda Winner, individually and as trustee of the Winner Family Living Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated the instant action by filing a Complaint against London Towne Center, LLC and Thomas Norris (collectively, “Defendants”). The Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Partition of Real Property; (2) Accounting; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty’ (4) Constructive Trust; (5) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; and (6) Unfair Business Practices (Civil Code § 17200).

On January 04, 2023, the Court granted Eric S. McIntosh’s Motion to be Relieved as counsel for Defendants. (Min. Or. 01/04/23.) Defendants have not retained new counsel and a hearing for an Order to Show Cause to Strike the Answer of Defendant LTC is set for May 25, 2023.

On March 02, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatory, Set One and a Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Request for Production of Documents as to Defendant Thomas Norris.

The Motion and Notice of Motion were served on Defendant Thomas Norris by mail and electronic transmission.

No opposition or reply has been filed.

Legal Standard

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)¿ A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)¿ Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.¿ (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)¿¿

¿If a propounding party moves for and obtains a court order compelling a response, the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the party failing to timely respond to interrogatories and demands for inspection unless that party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.010, 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.28;¿Sinaiko¿Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 404.)¿

of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Plaintiff 910 Torrance Blvd, LLC owns a one-third (1/3) interest as a tenant in common of the subject property located in Redondo Beach. Defendant London Towne Center, LLC (“LTC”) owns a two-thirds (2/3) interest in the subject property with Defendant Thomas Norris being the sole member and manager of LTC. Plaintiffs allege Defendants LTC and Norris had exclusive control over the subject property’s accounts and finances. Plaintiffs now seek accounting of the finances.

Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiffs assert that on November 28, 2022, Plaintiffs served Defendant Thomas Norris with a request for a Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents and responses were due on December 30, 2022, but no response has been served. (Breman Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Interrogatory No. 1 requests the following:

“Please review your responses to interrogatories previously served on you in this action. If for any reason any answer is no longer correct and complete, identify the answer and state whatever information is necessary to make it correct and complete as of the date of your responses to this supplemental interrogatory.”

(Breman Decl. Ex. A.)

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents and Things requests the following:

“Please review your responses to the previously Requests for Production and Inspection of Documents and Things served on you in this action. If for any reason any answer is no longer correct and complete, identify the answer and state whatever information is necessary to make it correct and complete as of the date of your responses to this Supplemental Demand, and produce the originals and/or copies, if originals are unavailable, including exhibits and attachments annexed thereto, of each of the responsive Documents pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure, § 2031.050 et. seq., on December 30, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. at Breman Law Offices, 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 Los Angeles, California.”

(Breman Decl. Ex. B.)

Since Defendant Thomas Norris was properly served with notice of this motion and no opposition or response has been provided, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

Request for Sanctions

The Court finds that Defendant Norris did not act with substantial justification in not responding to the supplemental integratory and supplemental request for production of documents such that sanctions are warranted.

“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. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion requests sanctions against Thomas Norris in the sum of $2,195.85 for Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs incurred in connection with each motion.

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rate for this matter is $350.00 per hour. (Breman Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel assets she spent 3.0 hours researching and drafting this motion, and anticipates 2.0 hours reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply; plus 1.0 hours attending the hearing by virtual appearance. (Id.)

Plaintiffs also seek to recover costs totaling $91.85 comprised of 1) Hearing fees paid to Los Angeles Superior Court in the amount of $61.65 2) E-Filing fees in the amount of $ 29.00 for motion, proposed order and the anticipated reply, and 3) $1.20 in postage for service. (Breman Decl. ¶ 9.) The total amount requested as sanctions is $2,191.85. (Id.)

Since the motion is not complex and remains unopposed, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions in the amount of $1,050.00 for 3.0 hours of work, plus $91.85 in costs, totaling $1,141.85 in sanctions.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Thomas Norris’ response to Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $1,141.85 against Defendant Thomas Norris.

Moving party to give notice.