Case Name: Richardson v. Richardson, et al.
Case No.: 18CV324826

According to the allegations of the second amended complaint (“SAC”), on December 4, 2015, plaintiff Rosa Maria Richardson (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Raul Enrique Richardson (“Raul”) agreed to form and register THE AME LLC, equally dividing the monthly profit generated and dividends, and to share equal ownership and business decisions in all aspects of the administration and affairs. (See SAC, ¶¶ 16-25.) On October 26, 2016, Raul terminated Plaintiff from all aspects of THE AME LLC’s business activities, in breach of the agreement, and instead, replaced Plaintiff on December 7, 2016 with his girlfriend, Deborah Cogco. (See SAC, ¶¶ 26-27.) On November 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed the SAC, asserting causes of action against Raul, The Apartment Management Experts, LLC, Thai T. Nguyen, and Koehler & Associates, CPA’s Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for:

1) Breach of oral contract;
2) Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
3) Conversion;
4) Breach of fiduciary duty;
5) Fraud;
6) Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty;
7) Injurious falsehood;
8) Slander of title;
9) Demand for corporate records;
10) Accounting; and,
11) Declaratory relief.

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff served Raul with form interrogatories (“FIs”), special interrogatories (“SIs”), requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) and requests for admissions (“RFAs”). Raul did not respond to these discovery requests. On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to the FIs, SIs and RPDs, and a motion to deem requests for admissions as admitted.

On September 17, 2019, Raul finally served responses to the FIs, SIs, and the RFAs, albeit including objections.

The motion to compel responses to FIs and SIs, and regarding the RFAs is MOOT.

Raul still has yet to provide any responses to the RPDs. The motion to compel responses to the RPDs is GRANTED. Defendant shall produce documents and provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 20 calendar days of service of this signed Order.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,116.34 against Raul. Plaintiff’s request is code-compliant. Plaintiff has substantially prevailed against Raul in her motion, and there are no circumstances that would make imposition of the sanctions unjust. However, Plaintiff has requested fees for meet and confer and anticipated fees; the Court does not award fees for meet and confer or anticipated fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED against Raul in the amount of $1,741.34. Defendant shall pay $1,741.34 to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 calendar days of the service of this signed Order.

The Court shall prepare the Order.