This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/16/2021 at 16:14:02 (UTC).

PROJECT ONE-FIFTY, LP VS ASHOK B. PATEL, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/26/2019 PROJECT ONE-FIFTY, LP filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ASHOK B PATEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RAMONA G. SEE and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0855

  • Filing Date:

    09/26/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RAMONA G. SEE

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PROJECT ONE-FIFTY LP

Defendants

PATEL VABOR BHAI

PATEL ASHOK B. DBA TOGO'S EATERY DBA TOGO'S EL SEGUNDO DBA JAYAN ENTERPRISES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BAYER KENNETH

GENTINO ROBERT E.

Defendant Attorneys

HILTON LAWRENCE

HILTON LAWRENCE JAMES

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF PLAINTIF'S IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON JAN. 8-11, 2021

7/28/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF PLAINTIF'S IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON JAN. 8-11, 2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

8/2/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT ASHOK B. PATEL'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

6/30/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT ASHOK B. PATEL'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

6/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

6/21/2021: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

1/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

3/11/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTION

3/25/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTION

Reply - REPLY REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. HILTON

4/1/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. HILTON

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

5/25/2021: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

12/21/2020: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

12/16/2020: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

8/28/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. HILTON ISO MOTION TO COMPEL

8/28/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. HILTON ISO MOTION TO COMPEL

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. HILTON RE FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT PATEL'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

9/22/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. HILTON RE FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT PATEL'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

Notice - NOTICE OF VERIFIED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

9/29/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF VERIFIED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT ASHOK B. P...)

9/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT ASHOK B. P...)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RULING

10/16/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RULING

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/30/2021
  • Hearing11/30/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2021
  • Hearing11/16/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2021
  • Hearing09/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion - Other (Motion for Terminating Sanctions) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Terminating Sanctions)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Plaintif's identification of documents produced on Jan. 8-11, 2021); Filed by Project One-Fifty, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion - Other (Motion for Terminating Sanctions) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2021
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Defendant Ashok B. Patel's Motion for Terminating Sanctions); Filed by ASHOK B. PATEL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2021
  • DocketNotice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by ASHOK B. PATEL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2021
  • Docketat 12:00 PM in Department B; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
42 More Docket Entries
  • 12/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Kenneth Bayer (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Project One-Fifty, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by ASHOK B. PATEL (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Project One-Fifty, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Project One-Fifty, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Project One-Fifty, LP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19TRCV00855 Hearing Date: October 13, 2021 Dept: B

\r\n\r\n

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT –\r\nSOUTHWEST DISTRICT

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday,\r\nOctober 13, 2021

\r\n\r\n

Department B Calendar No. 5

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PROCEEDINGS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Project\r\nOne-Fifty, LP v. Ashok B. Patel, et al.

\r\n\r\n

19TRCV00855

\r\n\r\n
  1. Ashok B. Patel’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    TENTATIVE RULING

    Ashok B. Patel’s Motion for\r\nTerminating Sanctions is denied, in part, and granted, in part.

    Background

    Plaintiff filed this action on\r\nSeptember 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges\r\nthat Defendant breached the commercial real property lease agreement.

    Motion for Terminating\r\nSanctions

    If a party fails to comply with a court order\r\ncompelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may\r\nimpose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. CCP § 2025.450(h) (depositions); §\r\n2030.290(c) (interrogatories); § 2031.300(c) (demands for production of\r\ndocuments). CCP § 2023.030 provides\r\nthat, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular\r\ndiscovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person,\r\nor attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating]\r\nsanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery\r\nprocess . . . .” CCP § 2023.010 provides\r\nthat “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the\r\nfollowing: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an\r\nauthorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide\r\ndiscovery. . . . .”

    “The trial court may order a terminating sanction for\r\ndiscovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if\r\nthe actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the\r\nnumber of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” Los\r\nDefensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390\r\n(quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77\r\nCal. App. 4th 1225, 1246). “Generally,\r\n‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by\r\na history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not\r\nproduce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in\r\nimposing the ultimate sanction.’” Los Defensores, 223 Cal. App. 4th\r\nat 390 (citation omitted).

    “Under this standard, trial courts have properly\r\nimposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more\r\ndiscovery orders.” Los Defensores, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 390 (citing Lang, 77 Cal. App. 4th at 1244-1246\r\n(discussing cases)); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian\r\n(1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after\r\ndefendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange\r\n(1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal. 4th\r\n469, 478, n. 4 (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to\r\ncomply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).

    The type of severe sanctions sought by plaintiff such\r\nas issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a\r\ncourt order are allowed only where the failure was willful. See,\r\nR.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486,\r\n495; See also Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545; See, also, Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.

    “Doomsday” sanctions are reserved\r\nfor parties who commit willful, repeated, violations of court orders. Los\r\nDefensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390. “Generally, [a] decision to order terminating\r\nsanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful,\r\npreceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions\r\nwould not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is\r\njustified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” \r\nId.

    Defendant moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§\r\n2023.030(d)(1) and 2031.320(c) for an order striking the complaint of Plaintiff\r\nand granting default judgment in favor of Patel. Alternatively, Defendant requests\r\nthat the Court issue an evidentiary sanction pursuant to CCP §2023.030(c) precluding\r\nPlaintiff from introducing evidence of any efforts to relet the premises at issue\r\nin this action into the record. In\r\naddition, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or its\r\ncounsel in the amount of $10,592.25.

    First, the Court notes that the request to enter a\r\ndefault judgment in favor of Defendant is uncertain. There does not appear to be any\r\nCross-Complaint filed by Defendant. Thus,\r\nno default judgment can be entered against the Plaintiff.

    On September 30, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s\r\nmotion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production\r\nof Documents, and Requests for Admissions. On November 17, 2020, Defendant filed the\r\ninstant motion contending that Plaintiff has not provided responses or paid the\r\nordered sanctions. On September 27,\r\n2021, Defendant filed and served a supplemental brief. Within the supplemental brief, Defendant\r\nappears to state that Plaintiff has served discovery responses. However, Defendant contends that the responses\r\nare deficient. The propriety of the\r\nresponses would be the subject of a motion to compel further responses after,\r\nof course, the requisite meet and confer process. The facts here do not indicate a showing that\r\nPlaintiff has repeatedly and willfully committed discovery abuses. Thus, in light of this information, the Court\r\nfinds that the issuance of terminating, or evidentiary sanctions are not\r\nwarranted under these facts, as they would be too severe for the conduct at\r\nissue.

    Finally, the Court notes that no evidentiary sanctions\r\ncan be entered as moving party failed to file and serve the mandatory separate\r\nstatement pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(7).

    The Court does find that Defendant is entitled to\r\nmonetary sanctions since Plaintiff only provided responses after the instant\r\nmotion was filed.

    Monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of Defendant\r\nand against Plaintiff in the sum of $2,261.75 (8 hours to prepare and appear at\r\n$275/hour, plus $61.75 filing fee) payable within 30 days of this date.

    Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n'

Case Number: 19TRCV00855    Hearing Date: September 30, 2020    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

PROJECT ONE-FIFTY, LP,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

19TRCV00855

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

ASHOK B. PATEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: September 30, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendant Ashok B. Patel

Responding Party: None

Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Discovery Requests

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED. Moving party is ordered to pay additional filing fee of $120.

Plaintiff Project One-Fifty, LP is ordered to serve on defendant Ashok B. Patel verified responses without objections to defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admission, Set One, within 15 days.

Plaintiff Project One-Fifty, LP is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s request, within 15 days.

The court orders plaintiff Project One-Fifty, LP and his attorney of record, Kenneth Bayer, Esq., to pay to defendant Ashok B. Patel a monetary sanction in the amount of $1,110 within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

On September 26, 2019, plaintiff Project One-Fifty, LP filed a complaint against Ashok B. Patel, ind. and dba Togo’s Eatery, dba Togo’s El Segundo, dba Jayan Enterprises and Vabor Bhai Patel for breach of lease.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. CCP §2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.

Request for Admissions

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under § 2023.010 et seq.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b). The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

DISCUSSION

Defendant Ashok B. Patel requests that the court compel plaintiff Project One-Fifty, LP to serve responses to defendant’s initial special interrogatories, request for production of documents, and requests for admission served on February 6, 2020. Responses were due by March 7, 2020. On March 20, 2020, defense counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel that defendant had not received responses. On April 8, 2020, defense counsel followed up with plaintiff’s counsel as to the overdue responses. On April 14, 2020, defense counsel sent a third reminder. Defense counsel offered to accommodate an extension if plaintiff’s counsel was affected by the pandemic, but that plaintiff’s counsel would need to let defense counsel know if plaintiff intended to respond and by when. As of the filing date of the motion, defendant asserts that plaintiff’s counsel had not responded and defense counsel had not received responses.

The court finds that defendant properly served the discovery requests and that plaintiff failed to respond. The motion is therefore GRANTED. The court notes that moving party improperly combined three motions into one and paid only one filing fee.

Sanctions

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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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), 2031.300(c).

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff and/or its counsel in the amount of $6,370. The court finds that $1,110 ($340 x 3 hrs., filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff and its attorney of record.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Lawrence James Hilton

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HILTON LAWRENCE