Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani

By this motion, Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to FROGs 7.1 and 17.1.

FROG 7.1

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses FI in Department 54

“Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property: (a) describe the property; (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and (d) ifthe property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.”

Defendant’s amended response states:

(a) Leased premises at 2951 Fulton Avenue, Sacramento, CA (b) Building Code violations in connection with improvements at leased premises in Suites 3, 7, and 12. See attached. (c) These building code violations remain unresolved and architectural and legal fees are ongoing. (d) The property remains in responding party’s possession.

Plaintiffs take issue with Defendant’s response to subdivision (c) since the response does not provide the amount of damages.

Defendant opposes, arguing:

To be clear, Responding Party has no pending cross-complaint for purposes of making a property damage claim. In an effort to resolve the discovery dispute and exhaust all issues arising from affirmative defenses, responses included building code violations which were included in the supplemental production. The actual cost of repair remains unknown as stated in the supplemental response because there is no permit approval and any monetary amount of legal fees and architectural fees would be speculation at this stage. This response is consistent with CCP 2030.220(c).

The motion to compel a further response is GRANTED. Defendant’s response is deficient. “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.)

FROG 17.1

“Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses FI in Department 54

the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

In response, Defendant grouped together requests for admissions and responded collectively to each sub-division. For example, Defendant grouped Request for Admission Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 all under one response and collectively responded to the subsubdivisions. The same is true for Request for Admission Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and Request for Admissions Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this grouping is improper. The FROG states for “each request for admission”, it does not allow for group responses.

The motion to compel a further response is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve further written responses by no later than August 15, 2023, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

The Court notes that Defendant served an initial response and a “supplemental” response to the FROGs. Plaintiffs correctly observe that the responses were incorrectly captioned as “supplemental” responses. Supplemental responses, however, are proper when supplemental interrogatories are served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.070(a). The Court advises Defendant to use the proper caption for its discovery responses.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel Nilesh Choudhary of the Choudhary Law Office is DENIED. Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030(a). These provisions do not by themselves authorize the Court to impose discovery sanctions. Instead, the authority must come from another provision of the Discovery Act. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, petition for review granted on January 25, 2023.)

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.020 is DENIED. This section applies when a party wholly fails to meet and confer. Here, Mr. Choudhary did not wholly fail to meet and confer.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050(a) is DENIED.

Plaintiffs did not seek monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d).

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions due to Defendant’s failure to serve the exhibits to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses FI in Department 54

declaration is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Eden Garden Center, LLC (“EGC”) and Raj Sharma’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel Defendant Town and Country West, LLC’s (“Defendant”) compliance with further responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) is ruled upon as follows.

This is action arises from the purported breach of a commercial lease. Plaintiffs allege that in September 2015 they entered into a lease with co-defendant Town and Country West GP ("T&C GP"). Pursuant to the lease, T&C GP agreed that if it sold the property within the lease term, it must pay 10% of the profits from the sales proceed to Plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) To improve the leased property, Plaintiff spent approximately $500,000 purchasing and installing personal property items and fixtures. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Under the terms of the lease, Plaintiff retained ownership over personal property and fixtures placed at the property. (Id.)

In May 2018, Defendant acquired the Property from T&C GP. Plaintiff alleges that T&C GP did not pay 10% of the sales proceeds as required by the lease. Defendant thereafter terminated the lease by locking Plaintiff out of the leased property. (Complaint, ¶¶ 14-17.) Defendant also prevented Plaintiff from recovering the $500,000. (Complaint, ¶ 18.)

Janak K. Mehtani (“Mehtani”) and T&C GP have filed an amended cross-complaint against Plaintiffs. In their cross-complaint, Mehtani and T&C GP assert contract and tort causes of action arising out of two agreements. Mehtani alleges that he and Sharma entered into a joint venture agreement concerning the purchase of real property in Elk Grove that was up for foreclosure sale. Mehtani alleges that Sharma breached the joint venture agreement because Sharma failed to execute the operating agreement for the "Shasta Avenue Development, LLC", and Sharma continues to have a sole ownership in the Elk Grove property. T&C GP alleges that EGC breached its lease agreement by failing to pay rent. It also alleges that Plaintiffs negligently and/or intentionally caused substantial damage to the premises.

Trial is scheduled for November 12, 2024.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses FI in Department 54

By this motion, Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to FROGs 7.1 and 17.1.

FROG 7.1

“Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property: (a) describe the property; (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and (d) ifthe property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.”

Defendant’s amended response states:

(a) Leased premises at 2951 Fulton Avenue, Sacramento, CA (b) Building Code violations in connection with improvements at leased premises in Suites 3, 7, and 12. See attached. (c) These building code violations remain unresolved and architectural and legal fees are ongoing. (d) The property remains in responding party’s possession.

Plaintiffs take issue with Defendant’s response to subdivision (c) since the response does not provide the amount of damages.

Defendant opposes, arguing:

To be clear, Responding Party has no pending cross-complaint for purposes of making a property damage claim. In an effort to resolve the discovery dispute and exhaust all issues arising from affirmative defenses, responses included building code violations which were included in the supplemental production. The actual cost of repair remains unknown as stated in the supplemental response because there is no permit approval and any monetary amount of legal fees and architectural fees would be speculation at this stage. This response is consistent with CCP 2030.220(c).

The motion to compel a further response is GRANTED. Defendant’s response is deficient. “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses FI in Department 54

FROG 17.1

“Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

In response, Defendant grouped together requests for admissions and responded collectively to each sub-division. For example, Defendant grouped Request for Admission Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 all under one response and collectively responded to the subsubdivisions. The same is true for Request for Admission Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and Request for Admissions Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this grouping is improper. The FROG states for “each request for admission”, it does not allow for group responses.

The motion to compel a further response is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve further written responses by no later than August 15, 2023, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date.

The Court notes that Defendant served an initial response and a “supplemental” response to the FROGs. Plaintiffs correctly observe that the responses were incorrectly captioned as “supplemental” responses. Supplemental responses, however, are proper when supplemental interrogatories are served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.070(a). The Court advises Defendant to use the proper caption for its discovery responses.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel Nilesh Choudhary of the Choudhary Law Office is DENIED. Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030(a). These provisions do not by themselves authorize the Court to impose discovery sanctions. Instead, the authority must come from another provision of the Discovery Act. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, petition for review granted on January 25, 2023.)

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.020 is DENIED. This section applies when a party wholly fails to meet and confer. Here, Mr. Choudhary did not wholly fail to meet and confer.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050(a) is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses FI in Department 54

Plaintiffs did not seek monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d).

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions due to Defendant’s failure to serve the exhibits to the declaration is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses FI in Department 54

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.