WILD CHANG VS AIRCOOL INC.,, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC13354    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 26

Chang v. AirCool, Inc., et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES;

(CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Wild Chang’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Johnson Trinh’s Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request For Sanctions; And (2) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Aircool, Inc.’s Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request For Sanctions are DENIED. PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY DEFENSE COUNSEL SANCTIONS OF $980.00 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Wild Chang (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for fraud against Defendants Johnson Trinh and AirCool, Inc. (“Defendants”) on November 1, 2018. On March 6, 2019, an Answer was filed but it is not clear on behalf of which Defendant. (Answer, filed 3/6/19.) The Answer is signed only by Defendant Trinh and could not have properly been made on behalf of a corporation. (Ibid.)

It was not until August 29, 2019 that Defendant AirCool obtained legal counsel. (Substitution of Counsel, filed 8/30/19.) Defendant filed the instant Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions on October 14, 2020. Defendant AirCool filed an opposition on December 22, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on January 11, 2021.

On January 13, 2021, Defendants filed amended Answers.

Discussion

The Motion against Defendant Trinh is not supported by proper evidence. The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel—only two paragraphs long—does not lay a foundation for or authenticate any of the exhibits attached to the Motion. (Motion, Moest Decl., ¶¶1-2.) Therefore, the Court finds there is insufficient evidence to grant the Motion to Compel Defendant Trinh’s responses to the special interrogatories.

With respect to the Motion against Defendant AirCool, the Opposition admits that Defendant AirCool was served with two sets of interrogatories. (Opp., Benham Decl., ¶3 and Exhs. 1-2.) Upon obtaining counsel who determined that both sets of interrogatories were identical (which Plaintiff admits) Defendants served responses. (Id. at ¶5 and Exh. 3.)

Plaintiff now brings the Motion on the grounds that Defendant AirCool only served responses to the first set of special interrogatories, which Plaintiff had withdrawn prior to the appointment of defense counsel, but has yet to serve responses to the second set of special interrogatories. The Court does not approve of this gamesmanship by Plaintiff. Despite having received responses to the interrogatories, Plaintiff seeks to compel responses based on the irrelevant distinction between the first and second sets.

Additionally, Plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to the filing of the Motion against AirCool, blindsiding defense counsel. (Opp., Behnam Decl., ¶6.) While no meet and confer requirement exists for a motion to compel initial responses, Plaintiff has essentially already been served with initial responses to the discovery at issue. If Plaintiff took issue with the responses, a meet and confer effort should have been made and then a motion to compel further responses brought. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s filing of a motion to compel initial responses after receipt of Defendant AirCool’s responses was disingenuous.

Therefore, the Court awards Defendant AirCool, Inc. sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c) in the amount of $980.00. (Opp., Behnam Decl., ¶13.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Wild Chang’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Johnson Trinh’s Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request For Sanctions; And (2) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Aircool, Inc.’s Responses To Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request For Sanctions are DENIED. PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY DEFENSE COUNSEL SANCTIONS OF $980.00 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Defendants to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC13354    Hearing Date: January 20, 2021    Dept: 26

Chang v. AirCool, Inc., et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Wild Chang’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Johnson Trinh’s Responses To Request For Production Of Documents; Request For Sanctions; And (2) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Aircool, Inc.’s Responses To Request For Production Of Documents; Request For Sanctions are DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Wild Chang (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for fraud against Defendants Johnson Trinh and AirCool, Inc. (“Defendants”) on November 1, 2018. On March 6, 2019, an Answer was filed but it is not clear on behalf of which Defendant. (Answer, filed 3/6/19.) The Answer is signed only by Defendant Trinh and could not have properly been made on behalf of a corporation. (Ibid.)

It was not until August 29, 2019 that Defendant AirCool obtained legal counsel. (Substitution of Counsel, filed 8/30/19.) Defendant filed the instant Motions to Compel Responses to Request for Production and Request for Sanctions on October 14, 2020. Defendant AirCool filed an opposition on December 21, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on January 11, 2021.

On January 13, 2021, Defendant Trinh filed an Answer and Defendant AirCool filed a First Amended Answer.

Discussion

The Motion is not supported by proper evidence. The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel—only two paragraphs long—does not lay a foundation for or authenticate any of the exhibits attached to the Motion. (Motion, Moest Decl., ¶¶1-2.) In fact, Defendant AirCool disputes that it was ever served with the Request for Production. (Opp., Behnam Decl., ¶¶3-5.) Nor did Plaintiff’s counsel respond to the meet and confer effort by re-serving the Requests for Production prior to filing these Motions. (Id. at ¶4.) Therefore, the Court finds the Motions lack sufficient basis to be granted.

To the extent the opposition treats these motions as motions to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 and seek sanctions under the same, the request is denied. The Motions are brought to compel original responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300. (Motions, pp. 4:27-5:3.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Wild Chang’s (1) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Johnson Trinh’s Responses To Request For Production Of Documents; Request For Sanctions; And (2) Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Aircool, Inc.’s Responses To Request For Production Of Documents; Request For Sanctions are DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.