Case Number: 13UA2799    Hearing Date: August 12, 2014    Dept: A11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

ANZA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, )
) Case Number 13UA2799
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
V )
) Date of Hearing:
MAHFOUD DJELMANE, et al., ) August 12, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
)
___________________________________)

Defendant Mahfoud Djelmane’s motion to compel production of documents and motion to compel responses to special interrogatories by Plaintiff Anza Management Company came on for hearing on August 12, 2014. Plaintiff Anza Management Company appeared through its counsel of record, ______________________. Defendant Mahfoud Djelmane appeared through his counsel of record, ______________________. The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED:

The motion to compel production of documents and responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED, provided that compliance will be moot when Plaintiff pays the underlying judgment and accumulated interest together with additional sanctions in the amount of $420.

SO ORDERED this the _____ day of August, 2014.

______________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS,
JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

ANZA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, )
) Case Number 13UA2799
Plaintiff, )
) STATEMENT OF DECISION
V )
) Date of Hearing:
MAHFOUD DJELMANE, et al., ) August 12, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
)
___________________________________)

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. The present case is an unlawful detainer case regarding post-judgment fee collection and discovery. On February 6, 2014, Defendant Mahfoud Djelmane (“Defendant”) obtained judgment against Plaintiff Anza Management Company (“Plaintiff”). Defendant thereafter brought a motion for attorney’s fees, which was granted in the amount of $750 by order dated March 18, 2014. To date, this award has not been satisfied.

2. Defendant apparently served on Plaintiff post-judgment discovery requests on May 19, 2014. Plaintiff does not appear to have received these demands. Defendant thereafter filed the present motion to compel responses to special interrogatories and motion to compel production of documents on July 11, 2014.

3. On July 17, 2014, one day after Plaintiff received the motions, Plaintiff allegedly offered to complete the payment of attorney’s fees, including accrued interest, conditioned upon Defendant taking the present motions off calendar. Defendant has not made a reply on the offer.

4. Motion to Compel – Code of Civil Procedure §2031.300 provides that if a party, in response to a document production request, fails to timely serve a response, “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” CCP §2031.300(b). See CCP §2030.290(b) for interrogatories. The Court must impose a monetary sanction against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances make the imposition unjust. CCP §2031.300(c); §2030.290(c).

5. Plaintiff’s opposition stems not to any substantive argument as to the discovery requests, but rather contends that it submitted an offer of payment to Defendant after receiving notice of the outstanding judgment and Plaintiff’s failure to pay, including an offer for interest thereof.

6. The order in question was issued on March 18, 2014. Plaintiff failed to make any attempt to tender the $750 owed. Defendant waited two months, until May 19, 2014 before serving the present discovery on Plaintiff. Defendant then waited almost another two months before filing the present motions to compel. In the roughly four months since the order was issued, Plaintiff made no attempt to tender payment.

7. In light of these facts, Defendant served discovery and filed the present motions in order to collect on the award she is entitled to. Plaintiff has not demonstrated why the expense necessitated for Defendant due to Plaintiff’s inattention should be imposed on Defendant, and not upon the more culpable party. As such, no justifiable grounds exist to deny the motions.

8. However, the present requests will be rendered entirely moot should Plaintiff complete payment of its obligation. Obviously, discovery into Plaintiff’s ability to pay serves no purpose once Plaintiff has paid off the obligation in question.

9. Accordingly, the motions are Granted, provided that compliance will be moot if Plaintiff pay the outstanding March 18, 2014 award, including any accumulated interest, together with sanctions awarded hereunder, by September 11, 2014.

10. Attorney’s Fee Sanction – Plaintiff argues that sanctions should not be imposed because it was unaware that the $750 award had not been paid, and so it acted with substantial justification. This argument is unavailing.

11. As noted above, Plaintiff had nearly four months to pay the award before Defendant brought the present motions. Defendant exhibited sufficient restraint in giving the Plaintiff ample time to satisfy the award. That Plaintiff, by mistake, inadvertence or neglect, failed to do so is not “substantial justification.” Rather, Plaintiff’s unexplained neglect made it necessary for Defendant to go to the further expense of bringing the present motions in order to collect on an award she is entitled to. Refusing to impose a sanction under these circumstances would work an injustice upon the Defendant, shifting the costs of Plaintiff’s mistake to be borne by Defendant.

12. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay to Defendant $420, representing $120 in filing fees, and a further $300 for attorney’s fees.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the ______ day of August, 2014.

_____________________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS, JUDGE