This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/10/2019 at 00:30:30 (UTC).

R&J SHEET METAL INC VS IAN THOMAS GROUP INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/11/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by R J SHEET METAL INC against IAN THOMAS GROUP INC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9252

  • Filing Date:

    06/11/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

R&J SHEET METAL INC.

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

PHILADELPHIAN INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

DOES 1 TO 50

IAN THOMAS GROUP INC.

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement

1/4/2019: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

12/26/2018: Case Management Statement

DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/17/2018: DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE RE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FOR SERVICE ON LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

7/12/2018: NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE RE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FOR SERVICE ON LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE RE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FOR SERVICE ON PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

7/12/2018: NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE RE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FOR SERVICE ON PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

7/18/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

6/18/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/18/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

6/11/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT

6/11/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/08/2019
  • at 08:45 AM in Department 39; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • at 08:45 AM in Department 39; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by R&J Sheet Metal, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Ian Thomas Group, Inc. (Defendant); Philadelphian Indemnity Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • Notice of Filing

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE RE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FOR SERVICE ON PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE RE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FOR SERVICE ON LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • Notice of Filing

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by R&J Sheet Metal, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC709252    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 26

R&J Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Ian Thomas Group, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff R&J Sheet Metal, Inc.’s Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

DEFENDANT IAN THOMAS GROUP, INC. IS ORDERED TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, NOS. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 AND 25 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANT IAN THOMAS GROUP, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $935.00 AND ARE TO BE PAID TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff R&J Sheet Metal, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract of installation of sheet metal components and related claims against Defendants Ian Thomas Group, Inc. (“Defendant ITG”), Los Angeles Unified School District, and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”) on June 11, 2018. The case was originally assigned to an unlimited civil court and then transferred to the limited jurisdiction court on January 10, 2019.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions on May 3, 2019. The Motion was not set to be heard until November 6, 2019. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff continued the matter to January 29, 2020. The Court then continued the hearing to March 11, 2020.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Notice of the motion 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions for 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)). A separate statement is not required “[w]hen a court has allowed the moving party to submit--in place of a separate statement--a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (b)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (b)(2).)

Discussion

The Motion complies with the procedural requirements. Defendant ITG served initial responses to the discovery on February 20, 2019 and supplemental responses on April 16, 2019. (Motion, Exhs. B-D.) The instant Motion and notice of the same was timely filed and served less than 45 days later on May 3, 2019. The Motion is also supported by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating that counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant ITG exchanged numerous emails from February to May 2019 in an effort to resolve the dispute. (Id. at Exhs. E-H.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses and production of documents with respect to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a), a response to a request for production must either be a statement of compliance by the production date, a statement that the party lacks the ability to comply, or a valid objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a).) Here, Defendant ITG identically responded to the above requests with the following non-compliant statement: “These documents are voluminous and will take substantial time to pull from other documents, and therefore will need time for this production, and the production will need to be done at the Law Offices of Alfred Fadel located at 1880 Century Park East, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at a mutually acceptable date and time.” (Separate Statement of Facts.)

The Court agrees that this statement neither indicates that Defendant ITG will comply with the requests, or that it is unable to comply. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.220, 2031.230.) Insofar as Defendant ITG’s statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete or its a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further responses to the Request for Production, Set One within 20 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of sanctions, which are properly noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) However, the sanctions sought are excessive. Plaintiff is awarded sanctions of $935.00 based on five hours of attorney time billed at $175.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 motion filing fee. (Motion, Simonian Decl., ¶11-16.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff R&J Sheet Metal, Inc.’s Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

DEFENDANT IAN THOMAS GROUP, INC. IS ORDERED TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, NOS. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 AND 25 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANT IAN THOMAS GROUP, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $935.00 AND ARE TO BE PAID TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: BC709252     Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: 94

R&J v. Ian, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TO REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff R&J Sheet Metal, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

After Plaintiff R&J Sheet Metal, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) served their Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) on Defendant Ian Thomas Group, Inc. (“ITG”), ITG served its responses thereto on February 20, 2019. Plaintiff was unsatisfied with RFP Nos. 1-3, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-25, so its counsel met and conferred with ITG’s counsel as mandated by CCP § 2031.310(b)(2). (Motion, Exhs. E-H.) Having reviewed Plaintiff’s evidence of the meet-and-confer effort, the Court is satisfied with the effort. Because the meet and confer ultimately failed to resolve the discovery dispute, Plaintiff brought the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on May 3, 2019. Although Plaintiff usually has 45 days to file the instant Motion after ITG served its initial responses under CCP § 2031.310(d), ITG gave Plaintiff an extension to file the instant Motion by May 3. Accordingly, the Motion is timely.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff moves to further compel ITG to respond to its RFP Nos. 1-3, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-25 under CCP § 2031.310. That statutes provides that Plaintiff may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if (1) a statement of compliance in a response is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

ITG provides the same responses to RFP Nos. 1-3, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-25 as follows:

These documents are voluminous and will take a substantial time to pull from other documents, and therefore will need time for this production, and the production will need to be done at the Law Offices of Alfred Fadel located at 1880 Century Park East, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at a mutually acceptable date and time.

(Motion, Exh. D.)

Plaintiff does not contend that the statements of compliance in responses are incomplete or any other basis to compel ITG to further respond under CCP § 2031.310(a). Given that ITG has agreed to comply with its discovery obligations, Plaintiff appears to be requesting to compel compliance under CCP § 2031.320—not the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses pursuant to CCP § 2031.310. In other words, Section 2031.310 does not offer the remedy Plaintiff seeks to address.

“As a general rule, the trial court may consider only the grounds stated in the notice of motion. [Citations.]” (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125.) “Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based.” (CCP § 1010.) “A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (CRC 3.1110(a).)

Here, the Notice of Motion, and even the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, fail to state that Plaintiff is seeking discovery compliance pursuant to CCP § 2031.320. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is not only procedurally improper, but Plaintiff also fails to properly notify ITG that it is seeking compliance pursuant CCP § 2031.320. For failure to afford ITG its due process, the Court cannot grant the Motion.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff may bring a motion to compel compliance under CCP § 2031.320.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.