Sunset Stanley, LLC v. Monika Nikkaran

(Spring Street Courthouse: Dept. 26) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT 26 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

If you desire to submit on the Court's tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is [email protected] The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.

Please note that if you submit on the court's tentative ruling and do not appear, another party may appear to argue and the court may change its tentative ruling after the oral argument. If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the court will adopt its tentative ruling as its final ruling.

The deadline for a party to withdraw a pending motion, or take it off calendar, is TWO COURT DAYS before the hearing on the motion. The court will enter its tentative ruling on motions that remain on calendar after that deadline.

Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries to this e-mail will not receive a response.

Parties may schedule remote appearances for hearings on motions via LACourtConnect (https://mylacourt.org/laccwelcome). Remote appearances are not permitted for trial or Applications for Order for Appearance and Examination proceedings absent leave of court. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Judgment Creditor Sunset Stanley, LLC's Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions is denied without prejudice.

Analysis: On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff Sunset Stanley, LLC ("Judgment Creditor") filed the instant action against Defendant Monika Nikkaran ("Judgment Debtor"). Judgment Debtor filed an Answer on November 17, 2023. The matter came for trial and after taking the matter under submission, the Court ordered judgment in favor of Judgment Creditor. (Minute Order, 03/30/26.) Judgment Creditor filed and personally served the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 on the grounds that Judgment Debtor did not serve any responses to Post-Judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One). Specifically, Judgment Creditor served Judgment Debtor with Post-Judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One) on June 3, 2026. (Motion, Abramson Decl., Exh. 1.) Based on service by electronic mail, Judgment Debtor's responses were due by July 7, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.260, 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B).) As of the filing of the instant Motion on July 27, 2026, Judgment Debtor has not served responses or otherwise communicated with Judgment Creditor. (Motion, Bell Decl., P.P.7-9.)

The Motion does not cite the applicable statutes. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 authorizes the Court to order further responses to interrogatories. The statute states in relevant part: (a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (a), emphasis added.)

Section 2030.290, on the other hand, applies to motions to compel initial responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290.) Further, a motion to compel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 or 2030.300 may be brought post-judgment only as authorized by Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.010 to 708.030. Section 708.020 permits a Judgment Creditor to propound written interrogatories in the manner provided in Chapter 13, commencing with Section 2030.010, to aid in enforcement of a money judgment, and includes requirements specific to the post-judgment context. Absent the authorization under Section 708.020, the Civil Discovery Act does not apply to post-judgment discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2024.020 (parties are entitled to conclude discovery before trial.)

Motions should be premised on accurate authority. The Court will deny the motion to compel without prejudice to refiling under the correct Code provisions.

Conclusion

Judgment Creditor Sunset Stanley, LLC's Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Order Awarding Monetary Sanctions is denied without prejudice. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 24STLC09089 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 26 TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Regus Management Group, LLC, dba Spaces Fairfax's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is denied. An Order to Show Cause re Striking the Complaint is set for October 15, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Dept. 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Analysis: On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff Romel Ferrell ("Plaintiff"), in propria persona, filed the instant Complaint against Defendant Regus Management Group, LLC, dba Spaces Fairfax (erroneously sued as "Spaces Fairfax") ("Defendant"). The Complaint lists causes of action for negligence, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Compl., P.8.)

On February 24, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which sought "an order enjoining defendant, and defendant's agents and employees, from interfering with the Plaintiff's network settings, restoring essential services, and ensuring compliance with the terms of the lease agreement." (See Motion for Preliminary Injunction, p. 1:26-28.)

On June 4, 2026, the Court granted Defendant's ex parte application to vacate the trial date, on the basis that the docket did not reflect proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. (Minute Order, 06/04/26.) Rather, the Proof of Service filed December 11, 2025 purported to document service of only the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and did not address the Summons and Complaint.

On the same day, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, which it served on Plaintiff by first-class and electronic mail. (Motion, p. 6.) No opposition to the Motion has been filed to date.

Discussion