On 03/15/2019 NUSSBAUM APC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against 2304 SAWTELLE, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******2621
03/15/2019
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
WENDY CHANG
NUSSBAUM APC
2304 SAWTELLE LLC.
NUSSBAUM LANE
SIMON JOSEPH PATRICK
ZELIG STEVEN
2/23/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition (Combined) by Defendant to Motions to Compel Further Responses to RFA and RPD
3/1/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel
3/1/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel
3/8/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)
3/9/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
3/9/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
5/12/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney
6/15/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
7/30/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
8/27/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
8/27/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
8/27/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement
8/27/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement
5/3/2019: Answer - Answer
3/15/2019: Complaint - Complaint
3/15/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
3/15/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
3/15/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
Hearing06/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
Hearing03/10/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff)
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses: Filed By: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 03/08/2021
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses: Filed By: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 03/08/2021
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses: Filed By: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 03/08/2021
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)
DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 03/08/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 03/08/2021; Result Type to Held
DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 03/08/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 03/08/2021; Result Type to Held
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff)
DocketAnswer; Filed by: 2304 Sawtelle, LLC. (Defendant); As to: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff)
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/11/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff); As to: 2304 Sawtelle, LLC. (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff); As to: 2304 Sawtelle, LLC. (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Nussbaum APC (Plaintiff); As to: 2304 Sawtelle, LLC. (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Case Number: 19STLC02621 Hearing Date: March 10, 2021 Dept: 26
Nussbaum, APC. v. 2304 Sawtelle, LLC, et al. MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES
TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP § 2030.300) TENTATIVE
RULING: Plaintiff Nussbaum, APC’s Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special
Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS TO SERVE
FURTHER RESPONSES TO ALL INTERROGATORIES WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY
SANCTIONS OF $810.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS
ORDER. ANALYSIS: On March
15, 2019, Plaintiff Nussbaum, APC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against
Defendant 2304 Sawtelle, LLC (“Defendant”) for breach
of contract and common counts. The action arises out of a retainer agreement for
Plaintiff to represent Defendant in an unlawful detainer case. (Compl., ¶5.) On
August 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Request
for Sanctions (“the Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed. Discussion Notice of the
motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the
verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later
date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in
writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further
response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Here, the parties mutually
agreed to extend the time to respond to September 17, 2020. (Motion, Simon
Decl., Exh. 6.) The Motion was timely filed on August 27, 2020. Also, the Motion must
be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,
subd. (b)(1).) Plaintiff filed declaration demonstrating that the parties
engaged in an email and telephonic meet and confer effort following the receipt
of Defendant’s initial responses on June 25, 2020. (Motion, Simon Decl., ¶¶3-5
and Exhs. 5-6.) No supplemental responses were served prior to the filing of
the Motion. (Id. at ¶¶6-8 and Exh. 6.) The meet and confer requirement,
therefore, is satisfied. Finally, Cal. Rules
of Court Rule 3.1345 requires 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).) Alternatively, “the court
may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request
and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).) The
Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed
8/27/20.) Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form
Interrogatory Nos. 101.1, 103.1, 112.1, 115.2, 150.1, 150.5, 150.6, 150.7,
150.8, 150.9, 150.10 and 150.11. With respect to Form Interrogatories Nos. 101.1, 103.1,
Defendant responded that it would submit a response by way of supplement. This
is not a proper response. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220,
subdivision (c), a responding party must explain if it lacks personal knowledge
to respond and must make a good faith effort to obtain the information. For the remaining interrogatories, Defendant incorporated a
general objection by reference that discusses how the discovery is “in its
infancy” so that only information in Defendant’s possession will be provided.
(Separate Statement, p. 2.) Again, this objection violates Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (c). The general objection also
reserves the right to supplement or modify the responses, and objects to the
extent the requests seek privileged or protected information. The general
objection is also without merit because it violates the requirement that
Defendant respond “separately to each interrogatory” under oath. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a).) In addition to the incorporation of this meritless general
objection, Defendant objects to certain terms as vague and ambiguous, or that
the interrogatories seek attorney work product or the premature disclosure of
expert witnesses. The term “incident,” however, is not overbroad, vague or
ambiguous. “Incident” is plainly defined in the interrogatories as the
circumstances surrounding the alleged breach of contract. (Separate Statement,
Interrogatory No. 112.1.) Other objections that certain interrogatories are
overbroad as to time and scope similarly ignore that the interrogatories are
limited to the parties’ retainer agreement and obligations thereunder.
(Separate Statement, Interrogatory Nos. 150.1, 150.5, 150.6, 150.7, 150.8,
150.9, 150.10, 150.11.) The privilege-based objections also are inapplicable to the
interrogatories, which seek a statement of facts or identification of documents
regarding the contract dispute. Nothing in the interrogatories or in the
objections suggests that privileged information is being sought. (Separate
Statement, Interrogatory Nos. 112.1, 115.2, 150.1, 150.5, 150.6, 150.7, 150.8,
150.9, 150.10, 150.11.) This is a boilerplate objection that the Court finds
inapplicable. Finally, it is undisputed that Defendant agreed to produce
further responses during the parties’ meet and confer, thereby admitting the
initial production was not compliant with its discovery obligations and that
additional responses were required. (Motion, Simon Decl., Exh. 6.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s further responses to Form
Interrogatory Nos. 101.1, 103.1, 112.1, 115.2, 150.1, 150.5, 150.6, 150.7,
150.8, 150.9, 150.10 and 150.11. Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 1-7. In response to these interrogatories, Defendant again
asserts the objections made against the Form Interrogatories. As noted above,
incorporating the general objection violates Code of Civil Procedure section
2030.210. The objection to certain phrases as vague or ambiguous is also
without merit. The terms “services,” “performance or tendered performance” and
the like clearly relate to the parties’ agreement and what was required
pursuant to that agreement. (Separate Statement, Interrogatory Nos. 3-7.) For the
same reason, the objection that certain interrogatories are overbroad in time
and scope is improper. (Separate Statement, Interrogatory Nos. 1-7.) Also as discussed above, Defendant has not shown how any of
the Special Interrogatories seek privileged information or documents. Again, Defendant agreed to provide further responses to
these interrogatories in tacit agreement that the initial responses were
insufficient. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s
further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-7. Sanctions Sanctions are appropriate and have been properly noticed. (Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030.) However, the Court finds the amount sought
is excessive under a lodestar calculation. Plaintiff’s request for monetary
sanctions is granted in the amount of $750.00 in attorney fees and $60.00 in
costs. (Motion, Simon Decl., ¶11.) Conclusion Plaintiff Nussbaum, APC’s Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories
and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSES
TO ALL INTERROGATORIES WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND
COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $810.00
TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.
Case Number: 19STLC02621 Hearing Date: March 8, 2021 Dept: 26
Nussbaum, APC. v. 2304 Sawtelle, LLC, et al. MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES
TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP § 2031.310, 2033.290) TENTATIVE
RULING: Plaintiff Nussbaum, APC’s Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents and
Request for Sanctions is GRANTED AS TO REQUEST NOS. 1-4. DEFENDANT IS TO SERVE
FURTHER RESPONSES WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL
OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $810.00 WITHIN
20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. Plaintiff Nussbaum, APC’s Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Request for
Sanctions is GRANTED AS TO REQUEST NOS. 1-5, 7-11. DEFENDANT IS TO SERVE
FURTHER RESPONSES WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL
OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $810.00 WITHIN
20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. ANALYSIS: On March
15, 2019, Plaintiff Nussbaum, APC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against
Defendant 2304 Sawtelle, LLC (“Defendant”) for breach
of contract and common counts. The action arises out of a retainer agreement
whereby Plaintiff would represent Defendant in an unlawful detainer case.
(Compl., ¶5.) On August
27, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents and
Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Further
Responses to Requests for Admission and Request for Sanctions (“the Motions”).
Defendant filed a joint opposition on February 23, 2021 and Plaintiff filed a
joint reply on March 1, 2021. Discussion Notice of the
motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the
verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later
date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in
writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further
response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c); § 2033.290, subd.(c).) Here,
the parties mutually agreed to extend the time to respond to September 17, 2020.
(Motions, Simon Decl., Exh. 4.) The Motions were timely filed on August 27,
2020. Also, the motions must
be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310,
subd. (b).; § 2033.290, subd. (b).) Plaintiff filed declaration demonstrating
that the parties engaged in an email and telephonic meet and confer effort following
the receipt of Defendant’s initial responses on June 25, 2020. (Motions, Simon
Decl., ¶¶3-6 and Exhs. 2-5.) No supplemental responses were served prior to the
filing of the Motions. (Id. at ¶¶6-8 and Exh. 5.) The meet and confer
requirement, therefore, is satisfied. Finally, Cal. Rules
of Court Rule 3.1345 requires 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).) Alternatively, “the court
may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request
and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3); §
2033.290, subd. (b)(2).) The Motions are both accompanied by a separate
statement. (Separate Statements, filed 8/27/20.) Compel Further Responses to Request for Production Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for
Production Nos. 1-4. A motion to compel further responses to request for
production must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the
discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)
The requests ask Defendant to produce: 1. Every document or writing relating to or reflecting any
communications between Plaintiff and Defendant to the effect that Plaintiff was
not performing; 2. Every document or writing relating to any objection you
made to any invoice sent to you by Plaintiff; 3. Any and all documents or writings relating to or
reflecting payments from Defendant to Plaintiff; and 4. Any agreements or contracts listed by Defendant in response
to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory #1 served concurrently herewith. (Motion to Compel RFPs, Separate Statement.) “To establish
good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of
consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in
reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend
to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court
(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224, disapproved on other grounds by Williams v.
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 537, n. 8.) The Motion sets forth
specific facts showing good cause for each of these requests based on the
dispute between the parties. Namely, that the parties entered into a retainer
agreement under which Plaintiff performed its obligations, but that Defendant
has failed in its obligation to pay Plaintiff for its legal services, fees and
costs. (Motion, p. 1:5-7.) The requests above will tend to prove Defendant’s
performance under the retainer agreement. The Court also finds that Defendant’s initial responses were
inadequate insofar as they asserted generic objections such as “overbroad,”
“vague,” or “ambiguous.” The scope of the requests is limited to the parties’
retainer agreement and the obligations thereunder. The opposition only
addresses its objection to the term “writing” as ambiguous. The term “writing,”
is not only defined with reference to the Evidence Code but is such a commonly
used word that Defendant cannot credibly argue it is unable to understand what
is sought in the requests. Next, the privilege-based objections are not
supported argument demonstrating what potentially privileged documents might be
subject to production. This, too, is a boilerplate objection on which Defendant
has not met its burden. Finally, it is undisputed that Defendant agreed to
produce further responses during the parties’ meet and confer, thereby
admitting the initial production was not compliant with its discovery
obligations and that additional responses were required. (Motion, Simon Decl.,
Exh. E.) Defendant did not serve supplemental responses, which were due by
August 3, 2020, until February 23, 2021. (Opp., Zelig Decl., Exh. A.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s further responses to Request for
Production of Documents, Nos. 1-4. Sanctions are also appropriate and have been
properly noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) However, the amount
sought is excessive under a lodestar calculation. Plaintiff’s request for
monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $750.00 in attorney fees and $60.00
in costs. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.310.) Requests for Admission Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Requests for
Admission Nos. D-1 and 1-11. (Motion to Compel RFAs, Separate Statement.)
Defendant responded to Request for Admission Nos. 1-3 with “Responding Party
will further respond by way of supplement.” (Id. at Nos. 1-3.) This an
improper response because a party must respond to a request for admission by
admitting or denying the request. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.210, 2033.220.) Defendant’s overbreadth and privilege objections to Request
Nos. D-1, 4, 5, 7, 8 are without merit for the reasons discussed above. The
requests pertain to a specific agreement between the parties and the
obligations thereunder. Defendant has not shown a good faith lack of
understanding of the terms in the Requests for Admission. Also, to the extent
the opposition raises different objections to the Requests than those set forth
in Defendant’s initial responses, the Court will not make a ruling on their
propriety. Those objections should have been raised in the initial response or
during the parties’ meet and confer in order to facilitate resolution prior to
bringing this Motion to Court. Otherwise, the Court would have to conclude that
Defendant’s offer to supplement its responses was not in good faith. The responses to Request Nos. 6, 9 and 10 object that the
requests are compound. Request No. 6 asks Defendant to “[a]dmit that Defendant
breached the CONTRACT by failing to make payments due to Plaintiff for the
legal services Plaintiff has performed and costs Plaintiff has incurred.” This
is compound in that it asks Defendant to make an admission regarding its
obligation to pay for services performed and its obligation to pay for costs
Plaintiff incurred. Request No. 9 asks Defendant to “admit that Defendant
failed or refused to pay any of the $19,408.30 due Plaintiff on March 15, 2019
or anytime thereafter.” This request is not compound. “Failed or refused” means
the same thing in the request, specifically that Defendant did not pay.
Similarly, “on March 15, 2019 or anytime thereafter” refers to a single period
of time, not two separate periods of time. Finally, Request No. 10 asks
Defendant to “[a]dmit that as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s
breach of the CONTRACT, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the principal amount
of $19,408.30.” This request is also not compound. “Direct and proximate”
refers to the same type of causality and $19,408.30 is defined as the principal
amount of Plaintiff’s damages. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s further responses to Requests for
Admission, Nos. 1-5, 7-11. Sanctions are also appropriate and have been
properly noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).) However, the Court
again finds the amount sought is excessive under a lodestar calculation.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $750.00
in attorney fees and $60.00 in costs. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030,
2033.290.) Conclusion Plaintiff Nussbaum, APC’s Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents and
Request for Sanctions is GRANTED AS TO REQUEST NOS. 1-4. DEFENDANT IS TO SERVE
FURTHER RESPONSES WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL
OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $810.00 WITHIN
20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. Plaintiff Nussbaum, APC’s Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Request for
Sanctions is GRANTED AS TO REQUEST NOS. 1-5, 7-11. DEFENDANT IS TO SERVE
FURTHER RESPONSES WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL
OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $810.00 WITHIN
20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. Moving party to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases