Haya Jasmine Nagad v. G and J Gross, Inc. DBA Mickey Fine Pharmacy and Grill et al.

at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court will adopt the tentative as the final order, or take the matter off calendar at its discretion.

Gross, Inc. DBA Mickey Fine Pharmacy and Grill et al.,

Lead case (24STCV28669): The eleven motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Defendants G&J Gross, Inc., Jeffrey Gross, Gina Rafael Gross, and Farshad Naysan shall each serve verified, code-compliant further responses to the discovery identified below. All objections other than attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled.

Related case (24STCV30995): The three motions to compel initial responses are GRANTED. Mickey Fine Enterprises, having waived its objections by failing to respond timely, shall serve verified, objection-free responses to the interrogatories and requests for production at issue. The motion to deem the requests for admission admitted is GRANTED. Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $32,460. Given the upcoming trial date, responses and sanctions are due and payable within 30 days.

Introduction

On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff Haya Jasmine Nagad filed her Complaint in this action against Defendants.

On February 4, 2025, Plaintiff served her first sets of written discovery on Defendants.

On June 10, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation providing that Defendants would serve supplemental responses by October 1, 2025.

On October 29, 2025, following Defendants' failure to serve supplemental responses, Plaintiff filed the instant Motions to Compel Further Responses against Defendants G and J Gross, Inc., Jeffrey Gross, Gina Rafael Gross, and Farshad Naysan, together with the supporting separate statements.

On July 1, 2026, the Court held an Informal Discovery Conference, at which the appearing parties agreed that Defendants would serve supplemental responses by July 29, 2026, and the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a consolidated Opening Brief addressing all fifteen motions by August 10, 2026, Defendants to file a consolidated opposition by August 18, 2026, and Plaintiff to file a reply by August 24, 2026.

On August 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed her Opening Brief re: Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses.

Legal Standard

The court may order further responses where an interrogatory answer is evasive or incomplete, an objection lacks merit, or (for document requests) the statement of compliance or inability is deficient. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.300, subd. (a); 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Interrogatory answers must be "as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits." (Sec. 2030.220, subd. (a).)

A representation of inability to comply with a document demand must affirm a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, specify why the party cannot comply (the item never existed, or has been destroyed, lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been or is no longer in the party's possession, custody, or control), and identify any person or entity believed to have possession, custody, or control. (Sec. 2031.230.)

On a motion to compel further, the burden is on the responding party to justify each objection. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Objections not justified in opposition are overruled -- though, unlike a motion to compel initial responses, they are not deemed waived by operation of law.

Where a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or inspection demands, the propounding party may move to compel responses; the motion has no 45-day limit, requires no meet-and-confer, and requires no separate statement, and the failure to serve a timely response waives all objections. (Sec.Sec. 2030.290, 2031.300.)

For requests for admission, the failure to serve a timely response permits a motion to deem the matters admitted, which the court must grant unless the responding party serves a substantially code-compliant proposed response before the hearing. (Sec. 2033.280.)

The court "shall" impose a monetary sanction against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, or who necessitated the motion, unless that party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the sanction unjust. (Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c); 2030.300(d); 2031.300(c); 2031.310(h); 2033.280(c).)

The purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the specific abuse presented -- not to punish. (Do v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1213.)

Discussion

Lead-case Motions Against G&J Gross, Inc., Jeffrey Gross, and Gina Rafael Gross

These three defendants stipulated at the IDC to serve supplemental responses by July 29, 2026 and did not do so. On the unopposed record, and given the separate statements supporting each motion, the Court finds the original responses deficient and further responses warranted. The Court is inclined to GRANT the following and to order verified, code-compliant further responses without objection (except objections based on privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine, which are preserved), within 20 days:

· G&J -- Form Interrogatories 4.1, 4.2, 9.1, 12.1-12.7, 17.1; Special Interrogatories 18, 19, 21, 23, 24; Requests for Production 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23, 25, 28.

· Jeffrey Gross -- Form Interrogatories 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.5, 12.7, 13.1-13.2, 17.1 (as framed in the motion); Requests for Production 8, 26.

· Gina Rafael Gross -- Form Interrogatories 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1-13.2, 17.1; Requests for Production 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 26, 28, 29.

Lead-case Motions Against Farshad Peter Naysan (Requests for Production 14, 18; Special Interrogatories 3, 4).

Naysan did not appear at the IDC and did not join the July 29 stipulation. Having reviewed both separate statements, the Court finds the supplemental responses deficient. The Court finds further responses warranted and is inclined to GRANT both motions, with responses due within 20 days.

Related-case Motions to Compel Initial Responses Against Mickey Fine Enterprises (24STCV30995).

As to the Motions to Compel initial responses, no timely responses having been served, Mickey Fine has waived all objections, and the motions are GRANTED. Mickey Fine is ordered to serve verified, objection-free, code-compliant responses within 20 days. The merits of the underlying requests are not at issue on a motion to compel initial responses.

As to the RFAs, no timely response having been served, the Court must grant the motion and deem the matters admitted unless Mickey Fine serves a substantially code-compliant proposed response before the hearing. (Sec. 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion and deem the requests for admission admitted, unless Mickey Fine serves conforming responses on or before the hearing, in which case the deem-admitted motion is denied and sanctions are nonetheless awarded.

Sanctions

Sanctions are warranted, and no responding party has shown substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.290(c), 2030.300(d), 2031.300(c), 2031.310(h), 2033.280(c); Do v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1213.)

The Court finds Counsel's hourly rate of $600 to be reasonable. However, the Court finds the amount of time spent on each motion to be excessive and reduces the request as follows: As to each motion (eleven motions), the Court grants four hours at $600, plus the $60 filing fee for a total of $2,460 per motion, and a total of $27,060 for all motions. As to the Consolidated Opening Brief, the Court awards eight hours at $600, for a total of $4,800. As to the hearing on the motion, the Court awards one hour at $600. The Court hereby awards a total sanctions award of $32,460, allocated among the responding parties in proportion to the motions directed at each.

Conclusion

Lead case (24STCV28669): The eleven motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Defendants G&J Gross, Inc., Jeffrey Gross, Gina Rafael Gross, and Farshad Naysan shall each serve verified, code-compliant further responses to the discovery identified above. All objections other than attorney-client privilege and work product are overruled.

Related case (24STCV30995): The three motions to compel initial responses are GRANTED. Mickey Fine Enterprises, having waived its objections by failing to respond timely, shall serve verified, objection-free responses to the interrogatories and requests for production at issue. The motion to deem the requests for admission admitted is GRANTED. Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $32,460. Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative, and copying all parties in the email communication. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court will adopt the tentative as the final ruling or take the hearing off calendar at its discretion.

Case Number: 25STCV23734 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Dept: 224 Green Farms California v. Alta Adams Restaurant Project, LLC

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff Green Farms California, LLC dba Worldwide Produce is a wholesale produce supplier. Plaintiff alleges that on or about July 16, 2019, Defendant Alta Adams Restaurant Project, LLC opened a credit account with Plaintiff and thereafter ordered and accepted produce and related goods on credit, which Defendant promised to pay for.

The Complaint, filed August 13, 2025, pleads two causes of action against the LLC and Does 1-20: (1) breach of contract and (2) common counts (open book account, account stated, money had and received, work and services rendered, and goods sold and delivered).

The Complaint alleges a principal balance of $81,488.42 "per Statement dated February 6, 2025," with the account in default as of December 18, 2024, and prays for damages of $81,488.42, prejudgment interest at 10% per year from December 18, 2024, and attorney's fees according to proof.

The credit application attached to the default package contains a credit agreement, signed by Defendant's manager, in which Defendant agreed to pay for purchases when due, to pay 18% interest on past-due amounts, and to pay collection costs and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees.

Plaintiff now requests a court judgment under CCP Sec. 585(b) and (d) for a reduced principal of $65,628.48, plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs.

PROOF OF SERVICE/DEFAULT:

Default previously entered on 10/23/2025, per the clerk's notation on the CIV-100 filed 12/16/2025.

PRINCIPAL REQUESTED: $ 65,628.48

INTEREST: $ 6,059.39

ATTORNEY'S FEES: $ 3,895.13

COSTS: $ 570.00

TOTAL: $ 76,153.00

ANALYSIS:

Entry of default is not void: the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint after default was entered, and the defendant did not appear before default was entered. This is not a personal injury or wrongful death action, so no statement of damages was required. There is no pending motion to vacate default.

Plaintiff dismissed DOES 1-20 without prejudice by a Request for Dismissal (CIV-110) filed and entered on December 16, 2025, so all parties against whom a default judgment is not sought have been dismissed. Judgment is sought against the sole remaining defendant, so no severability or duplicative-recovery issue arises.

The JC Form CIV-100 was used to request a court judgment (item 1(d)); item 2 is completed, its line items sum correctly to the $76,153.00 total, and the figures match the proposed JUD-100. The declaration of nonmilitary status requirement is satisfied because Alta Adams is a business entity (item 8(e)). A memorandum of costs is