HARDER LLP VS LUCAS JARACH, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC05686    Hearing Date: March 04, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., March 4. 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Harder LLP v. Jarach, et al. COMP. FILED: 06-13-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC05686 DISC. C/O: 05-24-21

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 06-08-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT VEINBERG TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Harder LLP

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Nicolas Veinberg

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Harder LLP’s Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant Veinberg to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MAY 4, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant Veinberg is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 25, 2021 [X] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on March 1, 2021 [X] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff Harder LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and account stated against Defendants Lucas Jarach (“Jarach”), Nicolas Veinberg (“Veinberg”), and Riverside Entertainment Group, LLC (“Riverside Entertainment”). Defendant Veinberg filed an Answer on April 20, 2020 and an Amended Answer on August 24, 2020.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant Nicolas Veinberg to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on August 26, 2020. Defendant Veinberg filed a late Opposition on February 25, and Plaintiff filed a late Reply on March 1.

1. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that . . .”[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).

1. Discussion

Plaintiff served Defendant Veinberg with Form Interrogatories, Set One, on March 4, 2020 via regular mail. (Mot., Susman Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) After being granted several extensions, on May 22, 2020, Defendant Veinberg provided initial responses to the Form Interrogatories without a verification. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. 7.) On July 22, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a meet and confer letter regarding perceived deficiencies in Defendant Veinberg’s responses, including the failure to include discovery verifications. (Id. at ¶ 9, Exh. 8.) In response, Defendant Veinberg did not argue supplemental responses were not warranted. (Id. at ¶ 10, Exh. 9.) Instead, Defendant Veinberg’s counsel stated he was “happy to provide amended responses to give more specific facts.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel also granted Defendant Veinberg’s counsel multiple extensions between May 2020 and August 2020 to provide verifications. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-15.) Defendant’s verifications were not provided until August 26. (Id. at ¶ 10.) The above demonstrates Plaintiff’s Motion is timely and that it has satisfied the meet and confer requirements. The Motion is also accompanied by a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(3).

Plaintiff initially moved to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 17.1 as they pertained to Request for Admission Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, and Nos. 50.1 through 50.6. (Mot., Sep. Stmt., pp. 2-13.)

In Opposition, Defendant Veinberg argues this Motion should be denied because, “under California law, a party is not required to admit a request for admission if that party has a ‘reasonably entertained good faith belief that the party [will] prevail on the issue at trial.’…” (Oppo., p. 2:4-19.) Despite being aware that this is the law in California, Defendant argues, Plaintiff refuses to take this Motion off calendar. (Id.) The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion seeks further responses to Defendant Veinberg’s allegedly deficient initial responses to the first set of Form Interrogatories. (Mot., p. 3:4-8.) Plaintiff’s Motion does not seek to require Defendant to admit any Request for Admission. Thus, Defendant’s argument that the Motion should be denied in its entirety on this basis is wholly unpersuasive.

Defendant Veinberg also appears to argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery responses because Defendant lost his job, because his attorney is representing him on a pro bono basis, because his newborn had serious health issues, and because his baby and the baby’s mother eventually had to relocate to Russia. (Oppo., p. 3:15-22.) The Court understands these situations can create difficulties in responding to discovery. However, this does not entitle Defendant to deprive Plaintiff of the discovery it is entitled to. Defendant has not cited any legal authority in support of this position, nor is the Court aware of any.

The Court now examines the discovery requests for which a further response is sought. Notably, Plaintiff did not submit copies of Defendant Veinberg’s responses to the Requests for Admission in its moving papers. In Opposition, Defendant did. Having reviewed the discovery responses attached to Defendant’s Opposition, including the Supplemental Responses dated February 22, 2021, the Court finds there are no verification pages attached to them. Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) For this reason, the Court cannot determine which set of responses the ruling on this Motion should be based on, the initial responses or the supplemental responses.

Thus, Defendant Veinberg is ordered to provide copies of the verification pages for the discovery responses included in its Opposition papers. The parties’ requests for sanctions will be addressed at the next scheduled hearing.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Harder LLP’s Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant Veinberg to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MAY 4, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant Veinberg is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC05686    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., September 1, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Harder LLP v. Jarach, et al. COMPL. FILED: 06-13-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC05686 DISC. C/O: 11-10-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ANSWER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Harder LLP

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP § 435)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Harder LLP’s Motion to Strike Portions of Answer is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 27, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 27, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background & Discussion

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff Harder LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and account stated against Defendants Lucas Jarach, Nicolas Veinberg (“Veinberg”), Osvaldo Rios, and Riverside Entertainment Group, LLC. Defendant Veinberg filed an Answer on April 20, 2020.

On April 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Portions of Answer (the “Motion”) seeking to strike Defendant Veinberg’s statute of limitations affirmative defense and prayer for attorney’s fees. (Mot., p. 3:2-5.) Defendant Veinberg thereafter filed an Amended Answer eliminating the statute of limitations affirmative defense and request for attorney’s fees. (8/24/20 Amended Answer.)

On August 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Strike. Accordingly, the Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Harder LLP’s Motion to Strike Portions of Answer is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC05686    Hearing Date: August 04, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., August 4, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Harder, LLP v. Jarach, et al. COMPL. FILED: 06-13-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC05686 DISC. C/O: 11-10-20

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 11-25-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR OSC RE SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Nicolas Veinberg

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

(CCP § 418.10; CRC 3.110)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Nicolas Veinberg’s request to quash service of the Summons & Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. However, his request to set an OSC re Sanctions for Failure to Comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.110 is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, he files an amended proof of service that complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff Harder, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and account stated against Defendants Lucas Jarach, Nicolas Veinberg (“Veinberg”), Osvaldo Rios, and Riverside Entertainment Group, LLC.

Plaintiff filed a proof of service demonstrating that Defendant Veinberg was personally served with the Summons and Complaint on February 7, 2020. (2/21/20 Proof of Service.) On March 9, 2020, Defendant Veinberg filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint (the “Motion”). Defendant Veinberg thereafter filed an Answer to the Complaint on April 20, 2020.

To date, no opposition to the Motion has been filed.

1. Legal Standard

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: ¶ To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading, or 40 days if service was effectuated by substitute service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3); Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

1. Discussion

Defendant Veinberg argues that, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.110, service was untimely and thus the Court must quash service of the Summons and Complaint. (Mot., p. 4:2-6.) However, Defendant Veinberg filed an Answer to the Complaint on April 20, 2020. Thus, his request to quash service is MOOT.

However, Defendant also requests that the Court issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on Plaintiff as well as an assessment of costs. (Mot., p. 4:7-10.) Rule 3.110, subdivision (b) requires that the Complaint to be served on all named defendants and that proofs of service on those defendants be filed with the court within 60 days after filing the Complaint. The remedy for failure to serve within the specified time is a potential award of sanctions. Rule 3.110, subdivision (f) provides that “[i]f a party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule and has not obtained an order extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed.” Here, Defendant Veinberg was served on February 7, 2020, more than 60 days after the Complaint was originally filed on June 13, 2019.

However, the Court notes that the certificate of service filed with the Motion does not comply with the proof of service requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a. The Court is inclined to grant Defendant’s request to issue an order to show cause provided that Defendant Veinberg files an amended proof of service before the hearing that complies with Section 1013a.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Nicolas Veinberg’s request to quash service of the Summons & Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. However, Defendant Veinberg’s request to set an OSC re Sanctions for Failure to Comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.110 is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, he files an amended proof of service that complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.