This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/25/2019 at 07:39:52 (UTC).

RON DAYAN, ET AL. VS. QIJIE ZHAO

Case Summary

On 04/18/2018 RON DAYAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against QIJIE ZHAO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8420

  • Filing Date:

    04/18/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Not Classified By Court

DAYAN RON

BEVERLY HILLS INTERIORS

INTERIORS BEVERLY HILLS

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

ZHAO QIJIE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

SHAFAI JOHN Z. LAW OFFICES OF

SHAFAI JOHN ZACHARIAH

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

IP CHI

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Mail

9/19/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Answer

8/5/2019: Answer

Cross-Complaint

8/9/2019: Cross-Complaint

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

8/9/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Case Management Statement

8/22/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: TRIAL COURT DELAY REDUCTION ACT INCLU...)

8/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: TRIAL COURT DELAY REDUCTION ACT INCLU...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: TRIAL COU...)

5/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: TRIAL COU...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference)

2/5/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/18/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

4/18/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

4/18/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

Notice of Case Management Conference

4/18/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document - (Amended)

4/19/2018: Legacy Document - (Amended)

Request For Copies

4/24/2018: Request For Copies

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-09-11 00:00:00

9/11/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-09-11 00:00:00

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-09-25 00:00:00

9/25/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-09-25 00:00:00

Case Management Statement -

9/13/2018: Case Management Statement -

Declaration - IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9/13/2018: Declaration - IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/06/2020
  • Hearing04/06/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Qijie Zhao (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Qijie Zhao (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Trial Court Delay Reduction Act including Application for Publication) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Trial Court Delay Reduction Act inclu...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Qijie Zhao (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Qijie Zhao (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Cross-Complaint); Filed by Qijie Zhao (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Qijie Zhao (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 09/13/2018
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Beverly Hills Interiors (Plaintiff); Ron Dayan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A; Court Order - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-09-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • DocketRequest For Copies

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Beverly Hills Interiors (Plaintiff); Ron Dayan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Ron Dayan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Beverly Hills Interiors (Plaintiff); Ron Dayan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC068420    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: A

Dayan v Zhao

Discovery Motions

Calendar:

17

Case No.:

EC068420

Hearing Date:

February 28, 2020

Action Filed:

April 18, 2018

Trial Date:

April 06, 2020

MP:

Defendant Qijie Zhao

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from a business transaction by and between Plaintiffs Ron Dayan (“Dayan”), Beverly Hills Interiors (“BHI” together the “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Qijie Zhao (“Defendant”) for interior design service and provision of decoration goods. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to tender payment for the goods and services provided, with an outstanding balance of $56,110.04.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 18, 2018, alleging five causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Open Book Account, (3) Account Stated, (4) Quantum Valebant, and (5) Quantum Meruit. Defendant filed an Answer on August 05, 2019.

Thereafter Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs on August 09, 2019, alleging two causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, and (2) Money Had and Received. In the Cross-Complaint, Defendant alleges that the value of Plaintiffs’ work exceeds the amount paid by Defendant, and that Defendant is contractually entitled to a refund in the amount of $3,931.84.

PRESENTATION:

Defendant filed the instant motion on December 04, 2019. No opposition or reply briefing has been received.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant moves to compel responses to (1) Requests for Production, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (3) Form Interrogatories, Set One.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – A motion to compel responses may be brought where a responding party fails to timely respond to written discovery. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.290 (interrogatories); §2031.300 (production). No meet and confer is necessary where a party fails to respond to written discovery. See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906. An untimely responding party waives all objections, including privilege, unless they subsequently serve responses in substantial compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and demonstrate that their failure is the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.290(a); §2031.300(a). Sanctions are mandatory for a party making or opposing a motion, except when the party making or opposing the motion is determined by the Court to have been acting with substantial justification, or that other circumstances would render the imposition of sanctions unjust. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.290(c); §2031.300(c). Under the Civil Discovery Act, the Court is only entitled to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” the misuse of discovery. Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.030(a). The purpose of discovery sanctions is “not to provide a weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits, but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented.” Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 285, 301. Consequently, “[t]he trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.” Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.

On review of the moving papers, the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to responses for the discovery propounded on Plaintiffs. As to the issues of sanctions, the Court will award sanctions for each filing fee and 0.5 hours for each motion at Defendant’s counsel’s stated hourly rate of $375/hr. The Court notes that it does not consider meet and confer efforts recoverable as attorney’s fees, nor time in attendance for oral arguments where there is no apparent basis for any opposition and moving party may submit by a phone call. As such, the amount of sanctions awarded for each motion is $249.15/motion, for a total of $747.45.

---

RULING: below,

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant Qijie Zhao’s Three Motions to Compel Discovery Responses to Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories came on regularly for hearing on February 28, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTIONS ARE GRANTED; AND

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $249.15 PER MOTION, FOR A TOTAL OF $747.45.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE