Case Number: KC058921    Hearing Date: September 16, 2014    Dept: O

Montelago Two Development Company, LLC v. Lee, et al. (KC058921)

1. Plaintiff-in-Intervention Lee’s MOTON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY MONTELAGO TWO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET NO. ONE

2. Plaintiff-in-Intervention Lee’s MOTON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY MONTELAGO TWO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET NO. ONE

3. Plaintiff-in-Intervention Lee’s MOTON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY MONTELAGO TWO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET NO. ONE

4. Plaintiff-in-Intervention Lee’s MOTON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY MONTELAGO TWO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET NO. ONE

Respondent: Plaintiff Montelago Two Development Company LLC (filed a joint opposition)

TENTATIVE RULING

1-4. Plaintiff-in-Intervention Lee’s motions to compel further responses to discovery are GRANTED. Montelago is ordered to provide further responses to the outstanding discovery within 10 days. No sanctions.

The court is informed by Movant that after the continuance of the motions, the parties met and conferred and supplemental responses were served. The only outstanding issues remaining are Demand Nos. 1-2 and 6-8, Request for Admissions Nos. 35-38, and Form Interrogatory 17.1 as to Request for Admissions Nos. 35-38.

CCP 2030.300, 2031.310, and 2033.290 allow a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories, document requests and request for admissions if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP 2030.300(b); 2031.310(b); 2033.290(b).)

In summary, it is alleged after obtaining a judgment in Nevada for $99,162.62 against James and Connie Lee, Montelago filed a “sister state” judgment against James and Connie in Los Angeles Superior Court for $316,891.79 (the higher amount was due to attorneys fees, costs, and interest). Montelago then discovered a series of fraudulent transfers between and among the Defendants, which prompted the filing of this lawsuit.

In January 2012, James Lee paid the sister state judgment in full.

On 1/23/12, Lee filed a Complaint-in-Intervention, seeking a declaration that there are no “damages recoverable” in this action against any Defendant.

In April 2012, James Lee was dismissed from the complaint.

On 10/31/13, Montelago obtained default judgment in the sum of $219,613.21, representing the remaining attorneys fees and costs incurred up to the time Lee paid the full amount of the amended judgment.

Document Demand Nos. 1-2 and 6-8 seek documents evidencing Montelago’s legal expenses incurred and claimed as damages. The court finds the documents are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in support of Lee’s Complaint-in-Intervention. Since Montelago’s legal fees were part of the actual damages awarded, and Plaintiff-in-Intervention allegedly paid such fees, Plaintiff-in-Intervention may obtain evidence of those fees to support his claim that no further damages are recoverable in this action.

Request for Admissions Nos. 35-38, and Form Interrogatory 17.1 as to Request for Admissions Nos. 35-38 seek admissions that Lee’s wife and children were properly served at the address where substituted service occurred. Montelago did not address Request for Admissions Nos. 35-38 or Form Interrogatory 17.1 in its Supplemental Opposition. Further, Montelago’s response consisted of objections. If Montelago has no personal knowledge to admit or deny, Montelago has a duty to “state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (CCP 2033.220(c).) Further responses are required.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Montelago is ordered to provide further responses within 10 days. No sanctions.