Case Number: 19BBCV00222 Hearing Date: October 25, 2019 Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles

North Central District
Department B

VAZGEN KHACHATRYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19BBCV00222

Hearing Date: October 25, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

BACKGROUND

Allegations of the Operative Complaint

Plaintiff Vagen Khachatryan (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he had a credit card with Defendant Bank of America (“Defendant”) from 2006 to the present and that he paid off each account balance at the end of every billing cycle. He alleges that in September 2017, fraudulent charges appeared on his monthly statement and he immediately apprised Defendant, who concluded the charges were fraudulent. Nevertheless, Plaintiff alleges that he received a statement from Defendant demanding payment of $23,275 for a motorcycle purchased in Florida, though he did not make this purchase. Plaintiff alleges that he again informed Defendant of fraudulent activity, but Defendant refused to reverse the charges.

The complaint, filed March 15, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of the Beverly Credit card Act of 1971; (2) violation of California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”), Civ. Code, §1788; (3) negligence; and (4) declaratory relief.

Discovery Motions on Calendar

On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed 2 motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); and (2) Requests for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”).

On October 11, 2019, Defendant opposed both motions.

On October 11, 2019, the parties filed a Proposed Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information. The document is signed by each of the parties’ attorney.

DISCUSSION

FROG

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to FROG Nos. 1.1, 3.1-3.7, 4.1-4.2, 12.1-12.6, 13.1-13.2, and 15.1.

Defendant argues that the FROG motion is moot because Defendant served further responses to all the discovery outlined in the motion on September 26, 2019—after the motion was filed. (See Lawrence Decl. re FROG, ¶5, Ex. A.) It argues that to the extent Plaintiff finds Defendant’s further responses inadequate, Plaintiff must engage in a new round of meet and confer efforts and file new motions based on the recent responses.

As further responses were served, the Court denies the motion as moot.

RPD

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to RPD Nos. 1-21, 23-27, and 29-32.

In opposition, Defendant again argues that the RPD motion is moot for the same reasons as above. On September 26, 2019, Defendant served supplemental responses to the RPD. (See Lawrence Decl. re RPD, ¶6, Ex. B.) Defense counsel, Deleyla A. Lawrence, also states that the parties agreed on a protective order and that she represented that Defendant would produce remaining documents once a protective order was in place. (Id., ¶7.)

As further responses were provided by Defendant after the filing of the motion and the parties have agreed to the terms of a protective order for confidential information, this motion too appears to be moot.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to the FROG and RPD are denied as moot as Defendant provided further responses to the outstanding discovery and the parties recently entered into a protective order regarding the production and exchange of confidential information.

The Court will award sanctions in the amount of $820 ($350/hour x 2 hours, plus $120 filing fees) to Plaintiff in a reasonable amount for filing these motions, which prompted Defendant to thereafter provide discovery responses. Defendant and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $820 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this ruling.