McCoy Electric Corporation vs Annette Rubin et al

Case Number

16CV03591

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 10/14/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Compel as to Stuart Rubin

Tentative Ruling

McCoy Electric v. Anette Rubin and Stuart Rubin  

Case No. 16CV03591

           

Hearing Date: October 14, 2024                                             

HEARING:              Motion of The Las Canoas Co. dba Construction Plumbing and McCoy Electric Corporation to Compel A. Stuart Rubin to Respond to Interrogatories and Inspection Demands and for Issue Sanctions

                                     

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff McCoy Electric.: Daniel E. Engel

                                    For Defendants Annette Rubin and A. Stuart Rubin: Self-

                                                Represented

                                    For Cross Defendant/Cross Complainant The Las Canoas Co.      dba Construction Plumbing: Daniel E. Engel

                                    For Intervening Party U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III-A,

                                                LP: Marsha A. Houston, Christopher O. Rivas

                                    [For additional appearances see list.]

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion is granted as follows:

1. A. Stuart Rubin shall provide complete, code-compliant, responses to the Interrogatories and Inspection demands no later than November 18, 2024.

2. Counsel for The Las Canoas Co. dba Construction Plumbing shall serve notice of this ruling to Annette Rubin and A. Stuart Rubin at 269 S. Beverly Drive, Suite # 1455, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, along with copies of the subject interrogatories and inspection demands, no later than October 18, 2024, and file proof of service with the court.

3. No sanctions are awarded for or against any party at this time.

Background:

This action arises out of a remodeling project at residential property located at 4347 Marina Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93110. The Property was owned by defendants and cross-complainants Annette Rubin and A. Stuart Rubin (“Rubins”).

Plaintiff and cross-defendant McCoy Electric Corporation, an electrical contractor, commenced the action on August 15, 2016, claiming that it was still owed sums for labor and materials furnished at the Property. In response, the Rubins cross-complained against McCoy Electric (“McCoy”) and its principal, Richard McCoy, for breach of contract, negligent construction, overcharging, conversion of materials, and accounting. The Rubins cross-complained against The Las Canoas Co. dba Construction Plumbing (“CP”), as well as several other parties, on September 19, 2019, asserting causes of action for negligence, products liability, and breach of contract.

CP filed an answer to the Rubin’s cross-complaint on October 25, 2019, asserting a general denial and several affirmative defenses. On October 25, 2019, CP also cross-complained against the Rubins, alleging a claim for breach of written settlement agreement.

The Rubins dismissed their cross-complaint against CP on March 11, 2022.

On November 2, 2022, following a court trial, judgment was entered in favor of McCoy in the amount of $355,279.10.

CP and McCoy filed the present motion on August 12, 2024, arguing that A. Stuart Rubin failed to respond to interrogatories and judgment debtor inspection demands that were served on July 3, 2024, to the Clerk of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1011, subdivision (b)(3). At the time, the Rubins’ address was unknown to CP and McCoy.

A notice of limited scope representation filed by attorney Albert Hughes III, on August 22, 2024, states that the Rubins mailing address is: 269 S. Beverly Drive, Suite # 1455, Beverly Hills, CA 90212.

The Rubins were served with the present motion on August 12, 2024. No opposition or other responsive document has been filed.

Analysis:

Code of Civil Procedure section 708.020 provides, in part:

“(a) The judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories to the judgment debtor, in the manner provided in Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010) of Title 4 of Part 4, requesting information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall answer the interrogatories in the manner and within the time provided by Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010) of Title 4 of Part 4. . . .

“(c) Interrogatories served pursuant to this section may be enforced, to the extent practicable, in the same manner as interrogatories in a civil action.”

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.010 provides, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath. (b) An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 708.030 provides, in part:

“(a) The judgment creditor may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made in the manner provided in Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4, if the demand requests information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall respond and comply with the demand in the manner and within the time provided by Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4. . . .

“(c) Inspection demands served pursuant to this section may be enforced to the extent practicable, in the same manner as inspection demands in a civil action.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).)

A. Stuart Rubin failed to respond as required. He will be ordered to provide code-compliant responses. Valid objections are not waived at this time. However, A. Stuart Rubin may only assert valid objections and not assert frivolous boilerplate objections to the discovery requests or otherwise attempt to evade providing the required information.

Sanctions

CP and McCoy seek issue sanctions and $2,830.00 in monetary sanctions against A. Stuart Rubin for the necessity of bringing the motion to compel responses. Counsel for CP and McCoy bills at $500.00 per hour and claims a total of 5.5 hours spent preparing the motion. Counsel anticipates another 1 hour attending the hearing and a filing fee of $80.00.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

“Misuses of the discovery process include . . .(d) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, (e) making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery, (f) making an evasive response to discovery . . . (h) making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery, (i) failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.010, subds. (d), (e), (f), (h), & (i).)
 

“[M]ere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. [Citation.] . . . A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

Because the original discovery requests were served on the clerk of the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1011, subdivision (b)(3), it is not an absolute certainty that A. Stuart Rubin actually received the requests. While the court believes he did receive them, based on the information contained in the Engel Declaration, the court is not inclined to issue any sanctions at this time.