Preview
Saul Reiss, SBN 48528
1
reisslaw@reisslaw.net
2 Fay Pugh, SBN 198708
fay.pugh@outlook.com
3 Law Offices of Saul Reiss, P.C.
11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E
4
Los Angeles, Ca 90064
5 Tel.: 310-450-2888 Fax.: 310-450-2885
Attorney for Defendants ARA BALJIAN and BMI GROUP, INC.
6 and Defendant/Cross-Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC and
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – COOK BRANCH
10
GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Case No.: 20CV03544
11 )
GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, [Assigned to the Honorable James F. Rigali –
)
12 ) Dept. SM 2]
Plaintiffs, )
13 ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY
vs. ) DEFENDANT ARA BALJIAN TO
14 )
) COMPEL PLAINTIFFS GARY R.
15 ARA BALJIAN, an individual; LE ) HAUENSTEIN AND GWEN J.
PHUQUE, LLC, a California Limited ) HAUENSTEIN TO WITHDRAW THEIR
16 Liability Company; BMI GROUP, INC., a ) UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS AND TO
California Corporation; DAVID ) PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO
17 )
AGAZARYAN, an individual; MEHRAN ) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SETS ONE
18 aka “MIKE” AGAZARYAN, an ) AND FOR IMPOSITION OF
individual; ARMAN KARKOTSYAN, an ) MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE
19 )
individual; and Does 4-50, inclusive, AMOUNT OF $2,535 AGAINST
) PLAINTIFFS GARY R. HAUENSTEIN
20 )
Defendants. ) AND GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN AND
21 LE PHUQUE, LLC, a California Limited ) THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Liability Company, ) MAJID SAFAIE AND BRIAN STUART
22 ) OF ARYA LAW CENTER, P.C.,
) JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY;
23 Cross-Complainant, )
) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
24 Vs. ) AUTHORITIES
)
25 )
GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) [Concurrently filed with Declaration of Fay
26 GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Pugh and Separate Statement]
and ROES 1 to 50, inclusive, )
27 )
)
28 Cross-Defendants. )
1
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
) Date: June 6, 2023
1 ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
)
2 ) Place: Dept. SM2
)
3 ) Complaint Filed: October 27, 2020
) Trial Date: None
4
5
6 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
7 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 6th day of June, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon
8 thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department SM 2 of the above-entitled Court located
9 at 312-C East Cook Street, Bldg. E., Santa Maria, California 93454, Defendant Ara Baljian
10 (“Defendant”) will and hereby does move for an Order Compelling Plaintiffs Gary E.
11 Hauenstein and Gwen E. Hauenstein (jointly “Hauensteins”) to Withdraw their Objections to
12 the entire set of Form Interrogatories and Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories
13 9.1, 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 and 50.6 of the First Sets of Form Interrogatories and for Imposition of
14 Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $2,535 against Hauensteins and their attorney of record,
15 Brian Stuart and Majid Safaie of Arya Law Center, PC, jointly and severally.
16 The Motion is made on the ground that Hauensteins were served with the subject
17 discovery on May 31, 2022. The responses were untimely served in August of 2022,
18 accordingly, objections were waived. However, Hauensteins have failed and refused to
19 withdraw their objections. Furthermore, Hauensteins provided defective responses to Form
20 Interrogatories 9.1, 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 and 50.6. Despite repeatedly promising to provide further
21 responses, Defendant’s numerous meet and confer efforts and extensions granted from
22 September of 2022 to March 2023, Hauensteins have yet to provide further responses and
23 withdraw their objections.
24 This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010, et seq.
25 and 2030.010, et seq. and is based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and
26 Authorities filed herewith, the concurrently filed Declaration of Fay Pugh, the complete files
27 and records in this action, and all other matters and evidence that may be presented at the
28 hearing on this Motion.
2
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1
2 Dated: April 11, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C.
3
4 ________________________________
Saul Reiss, Esq.
5 Fay Pugh, Esq.
6 Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN
and BMI GROUP, INC. and Defendant/Cross-
7 Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 PAGE
3 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS / PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 4
4 A. THE COMPLAINTS. 4
5 B. THE CROSS-COMPLAINT. 5
6 II. THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE IN THIS MOTION AND MEET
7 AND CONFER EFFORTS. 5
8 III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. 6
9 A. HAVING FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TO
10 DISCOVERY, HAUENSTEINS HAVE WAIVED THEIR RIGHT
11 TO ASSERT OBJECTIONS. 6
12 B. HAUENSTEINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM
13 INTERROGATORIES 9.1, 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 AND 50.6 ARE
14 DEFECTIVE. 7
15 i. Form Interrogatory 9.1. 7
16 ii. Form Interrogatory 9.2. 8
17 iii. Form Interrogatory 50.1. 9
18 iv. Form Interrogatory 50.5. 10
19 v. Form Interrogatory 50.6. 11
20 C. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED. 12
21 IV. CONCLUSION. 13
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 PAGE
3 CASES
4 Best Products, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Granatelli Motorsports, Inc.)
5 (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181 8
6 Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771 9
7 Jones v. Sup.Ct. (Benny) (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534 10
8 Leach v. Sup.Ct. (Markum) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902 7
9 Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496 8-11
10 Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64 8, 11
11 Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
12 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 8
13
14 STATUTES
15 Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.050 6
16 Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.010 12
17 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.010 8, 11
18 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.210 6, 8, 10
19 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.220 8, 10, 11
20 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.230 7
21 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.290 7, 12
22 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.300 7
23 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280 6
24
25
26
27
28
ii
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS / PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
3 A. THE COMPLAINTS.
4 Hauensteins claim to be the owners of three parcels of land, commonly known as 3333
5 Avena Road, Lompoc, California (collectively, the “Property”). According to Hauensteins,
6 Defendants claim to own the Property. Defendants allegedly entered into oral and written
7 agreements, which they breached and have committed fraud.
8 On October 27, 2020, Hauensteins filed their Complaint against Defendants Ara
9 Baljian, Le Phuque LLC and Nationstar Mortgage Company alleging breach of oral contract,
10 fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraud in the concealment, quiet title and declaratory relief.
11 Hauensteins voluntarily dismissed Defendant Nationstar Mortgage Company.
12 Defendants Ara Baljian and Le Phuque’s demurrer to the Complaint was sustained
13 with leave to amend as to all causes of action.
14 On September 17, 2021, Hauensteins filed their First Amended Complaint alleging
15 the same causes of action and added BMI as a defendant.
16 On February 4, 2022, Defendants’ demurrers were sustained as to all causes of action
17 of the First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend.
18 Hauensteins filed their Second Amended Complaint alleging the same claims and
19 added three new defendants.
20 On October 4, 2022, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the second, third
21 and fourth causes of action for fraud, fraud in inducement and fraud in concealment, fifth and
22 sixth causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief and granted the motion to strike as
23 to the alter ego allegations, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees request.
24 On or about October 31, 2022, Hauensteins filed their Third Amended Complaint
25 alleging breach of contract and fraud.
26 On December 8, 2022, Defendants filed their answer to the Third Amended
27 Complaint.
28 ///
4
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 B. THE CROSS-COMPLAINT.
2 On December 8, 2022, Cross-Complainant Le Phuque filed its Cross-Complaint for
3 trespass, ejectment and writ of possession against Hauensteins based on the following facts:
4 Hauensteins borrowed $168,500 from Le Phuque memorialized in a Note secured by a deed
5 of trust secured by the Property. The Note provided that
6
“Should the trustor or his successors in interest, without the consent in writing
7 of the beneficiary, sell, transfer or convey or permit to be sold, transferred or
conveyed, his interest in the property, or any part thereof, then the beneficiary
8 may, at his option, declare all sums secured hereby immediately due and
payable.”
9
Without notice, knowledge or consent of Le Phuque, on May 31, 2019, Hauenstein
10
executed a Grant Deed transferring the Property to The Monterrosa Firm, Inc. On November
11
27, 2019, The Monterrosa Firm, Inc. executed a Grant Deed transferring the Property to
12
Golden Phoenix, LLC.
13
Shortly thereafter, Le Phuque discovered that Hauenstein had transferred the Property
14
and demanded repayment of the loan. Hauenstein claimed that they did not owe any money
15
and refused to repay the loan.
16
In December of 2019, Le Phuque declared the entire amount under the Note due and
17
owing and caused to be recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust.
18
On or about April 30, 2020, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale provided that the sale of the Property
19
would take place on June 3, 2020. On November 11, 2020, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale
20
was recorded by which Le Phuque became the owner of the Property.
21
Since November 11, 2020, Hauenstein have continued to occupy the Property and
22
have failed and refused to vacate the same or pay rent to Le Phuque.
23
II. THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE IN THIS MOTION AND MEET AND CONFER
24
EFFORTS.
25
On May 31, 2022, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (“FI”), Special
26
Interrogatories (“SI”), and Demand for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Sets One on
27
Plaintiffs. (Declaration of Fay Pugh (“Pugh Decl.,”), Exhibits 1 through 7).
28
5
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 On August 24, 2022, after numerous requests by Defendants’ counsel, Hauenstein
2 served objections and defective responses to FIs, SIs, and RFPs. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 7
3 through 12).
4 Hauenstein produced 5,033 pages of documents to Defendant Ara Baljian’s RFPs, Sets
5 One, but have failed to indicate which document is responsive to which demand in the RFPs
6 as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a).
7 From September 3, 2022 to February 20, 2023, Defendants’ counsel met and conferred
8 with Hauensteins’ counsel during which time Hauenstein’s counsel requested additional time
9 to respond and requested extension after extensions, which were granted. The final extension
10 granted for Hauensteins to provide supplemental responses was March 15, 2023 with
11 Defendants’ deadline to file motions to compel is April 14, 2023. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 13
12 and 17).
13 The details of the meet and confer are set forth in the Declaration of Fay Pugh and are
14 not repeated here in order to avoid duplication and waste of the Court’s time.
15 After requesting and being granted numerous additional extensions, no further
16 responses or additional responsive documents has been provided by Hauensteins.
17 III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED.
18 Unless excused by protective order, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed
19 is under a duty to respond to each question separately, under oath. Code of Civ. Proc.
20 §2030.210(a). The response is due within thirty days from the date the
21 interrogatories were served. Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.050.
22 A. HAVING FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TO DISCOVERY,
23 HAUENSTEINS HAVE WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO ASSERT OBJECTIONS.
24 The subject discovery were served on May 31, 2022. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 1 and 2).
25 The responses were served after numerous requests on August 24, 2022 and included
26 objections. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 7 and 8, page 2, lines 3-11). No extension for the responses
27 was granted. Accordingly, having served untimely responses, Hauensteins have waived the
28 right to object.
6
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 Failing to respond within the time limit waives most objections to the interrogatories,
2 including claims of privilege and “work product” protection. Code of Civ. Proc.
3 §2030.290(a); Leach v. Sup.Ct. (Markum) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906. Such
4 delay also waives the option to produce writings under Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.230 in lieu
5 of information contained therein.
6 B. HAUENSTEINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 9.1,
7 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 AND 50.6 ARE DEFECTIVE.
8 If a party to whom interrogatories are directed either fails to respond at all, or responds
9 with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court
10 order compelling answers or further answers to the interrogatories. Code of Civ. Proc.
11 §§2030.290 and 2030.300; see Best Products, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Granatelli Motorsports, Inc.)
12 (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-1190.
13 i. Form Interrogatory 9.1.
14 This interrogatory asks “Are there any other damages that you attribute to the incident?
15 If so, for each item of damage state: (a) the nature; (b) the date it occurred; (c) the amount,
16 and (d) the name, address, and telephone number of each person to whom an obligation was
17 incurred.”
18 In response, Hauensteins state: “We have not been able to legally effect documents
19 and leases for any of our 3 parcels of land since LE PHUQUE, LLC has been named on title
20 to all our land with the Santa Barbara County Assessor’s Office due to the direct fraudulent
21 actions of Ara Baljian. We have been prevented from gaining rental income from 3 separate
22 lessees since 2020, because of clouded titles on each of our separate 3 parcels of land caused
23 directly by the fraudulent actions of Ara Baljian.”
24 No responses have been provided to subsections (b) through (d). Unless excused by
25 protective order, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed is under a duty to respond
26 to each question separately, under oath. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.210(a).
27 ///
28 ///
7
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 ii. Form Interrogatory 9.2.
2 This interrogatory asks “Do any documents support the existence or amount of any
3 item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the
4 name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document”.
5 In response, Hauensteins state: “Unknown to Plaintiffs”.
6 The responses are defective. Hauensteins are claiming that they were damaged,
7 accordingly, it is unclear how they do not know of the existence of documents that support
8 their own claims. There is no evidence that that Hauensteins made any effort to obtain the
9 requested information in order to provide complete responses to this interrogatory.
10 A response stating “inability to respond” is legally insufficient. If the responding party
11 lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond, he or she may so state, but only after making a
12 reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other persons or
13 organizations. See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants
14 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406.
15 “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully
16 to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort
17 to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where
18 the information is equally available to the propounding party.” Code of Civ. Proc.
19 §2030.220(c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496,
20 1504 (citing text).
21 Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the
22 information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot
23 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” Code of Civ. Proc.
24 §2030.220(a)(b).
25 “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering
26 written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76
27 (quotes omitted); see Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.010(f) — evasive response is ground
28 for sanctions.
8
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 iii. Form Interrogatory 50.1.
2 This interrogatory asks “For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: (a) identify each
3 document that is part of the agreement and for each state the name, address, and telephone
4 number of each person who has the document; (b) state each part of the agreement not in
5 writing, the name, address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to that provision,
6 and the date that part of the agreement was made; (c) identify all documents that evidence any
7 part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone
8 number of each person who has the document; (d) identify all documents that are part of any
9 modification to the agreement, and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of
10 each person who has the document; (e) state each modification not in writing, the date, and
11 the name, address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to the modification and the
12 date the modification was made; (f) identify all documents that evidence any modification of
13 the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of
14 each person who has the document.”
15 In response, Hauensteins state: “Cannabis Land Lease from 2016, Backdated
16 Cannabis Land Lease from 2017(backdated to 2015 per mandate by Ara Baljian), Ara
17 Baljian’s “Security Lein” paperwork where he used undue influence and misinformation to
18 gain our signatures. Our daughter, Karin Hauenstein, has all of our documents secured. Her
19 address is: 3333 Avena Road, Lompoc, CA 93436 and her telephone number is (805)944-
20 8110.”
21 The responses are defective because as to Karin Hauenstein having the documents,
22 she was acting as Hauensteins’ agent through a power of attorney and is their daughter.
23 Accordingly, whatever Ms. Karin Hauenstein has in her possession is available to her parents.
24 In answering interrogatories, a party must furnish information available from sources under
25 the party's control: “[A party] cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained
26 from sources under his control.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782; Regency
27 Health Services, Inc. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504 (citing text).
28
9
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 In answering interrogatories, a party is expected to make good faith inquiry of his or
2 her family members, at least where they are shown to be cooperating with the party in the
3 lawsuit. Jones v. Sup.Ct. (Benny) (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534, 552 (disapproved on other
4 grounds by Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 and fn. 8).
5 Second, Hauensteins have not responded to subparts (b) through (f). Unless excused
6 by protective order, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed is under a duty to
7 respond to each question separately, under oath. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.210(a).
8 iv. Form Interrogatory 50.5.
9 This interrogatory asks “Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings unenforceable? If
10 so, identify each unenforceable agreement and state why it is unenforceable.”
11 In response, Hauensteins state: “Unknown to Plaintiffs”.
12 The responses are defective. There is no evidence that that Hauensteins made any
13 effort to obtain the requested information in order to provide complete responses to this
14 interrogatory.
15 A response stating “inability to respond” is legally insufficient. If the responding
16 party lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond, he or she may so state, but only after
17 making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other
18 persons or organizations. See Sinaiko, supra.
19 “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully
20 to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort
21 to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where
22 the information is equally available to the propounding party.” Code of Civ. Proc.
23 §2030.220(c); Regency Health, supra.
24 Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the
25 information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot
26 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” Code of Civ. Proc.
27 §2030.220(a)(b).
28
10
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering
2 written interrogatories.” Scheiding, supra; see Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.010(f) —evasive
3 response is ground for sanctions.
4 v. Form Interrogatory 50.6.
5 This interrogatory asks “Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so,
6 identify each ambiguous agreement and state why it is ambiguous.”
7 In response, Hauensteins state: “Unknown to Plaintiffs”.
8 The responses are defective. There is no evidence that that Hauensteins made any
9 effort to obtain the requested information in order to provide complete responses to this
10 interrogatory.
11 A response stating “inability to respond” is legally insufficient. If the responding
12 party lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond, he or she may so state, but only after
13 making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other
14 persons or organizations. See Sinaiko, supra.
15 “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully
16 to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort
17 to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where
18 the information is equally available to the propounding party.” Code of Civ. Proc.
19 §2030.220(c); Regency Health, supra.
20 Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the
21 information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot
22 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” Code of Civ. Proc.
23 §2030.220(a)(b).
24 “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering
25 written interrogatories.” Scheiding, supra; see Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.010(f) — evasive
26 response is ground for sanctions.
27 ///
28 ///
11
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 C. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED.
2 If the party properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court “shall” impose
3 a monetary sanction against the losing party on the motion to compel unless it finds that party
4 acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances render the sanction “unjust.”
5 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.290(c).
6 Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.010 provides
7
“Misuse of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:
8 … (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. …
(f) Making an evasive response to discovery. … (h) Making or opposing,
9 unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to
limit discovery.”
10
From September 3, 2022 to February 20, 2023, Defendants’ counsel met and conferred
11
with Hauensteins’ counsel during which time Hauensteins’ counsel requested additional time
12
to respond and requested extension after extensions, which were granted. The final extension
13
granted for Hauensteins to provide supplemental responses was March 15, 2023 with
14
Defendants’ deadline to file motions to compel on April 14, 2023. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 13
15
and 17).
16
After requesting and being granted numerous additional extensions, no further
17
responses have been provided by Hauensteins and they have failed and refused to withdraw
18
their untimely objections. Their failure and refusal to provide further responses despite
19
agreeing to do after numerous meet and confer attempts and extensions granted justifies the
20
imposition of sanctions. By virtue of having to bring the instant motion, Defendant has
21
incurred costs of $60 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,475 as fully explained in the
22
concurrently filed Declaration of Fay Pugh.
23
IV. CONCLUSION.
24
Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court order
25
Hauensteins to withdraw their objections to the entire set of Form Interrogatories and provide
26
further responses to Form Interrogatories 9.1, 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 and 50.6 of the First Sets of Form
27
28
12
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
1 Interrogatories and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,535 against Hauensteins
2 and their counsel, jointly and severally.
3
Dated: April 11, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C.
4
5
6 ________________________________
Saul Reiss, Esq.
7 Fay Pugh, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN
8 and BMI GROUP, INC. and Defendant/Cross-
9 Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E,
4
Los Angeles, CA 90064; my email is fay.pugh@outlook.com
5
On April 12, 2023, I caused the foregoing document described as
6
7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT ARA BALJIAN TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFFS GARY R. HAUENSTEIN AND GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN TO
8 WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS AND TO PROVIDE FURTHER
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SETS ONE AND FOR
9 IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,535
10 AGAINST PLAINTIFFS GARY R. HAUENSTEIN AND GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN
AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD MAJID SAFAIE AND BRIAN STUART OF
11 ARYA LAW CENTER, P.C., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
12
13 to be served on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows:
14 Majid Safaie, Esq.
majid.safaie@aryalc.com
15 Brian Stuart, Esq.
16 brian.stuart@aryalc.com
Arya Law Center, PC
17 3187 Red Hill Ave., Suite 115 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: 877-279-2523
18
Fax: 877-235-1558
19
/ X / (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused the above-referenced document to be served
20 through One Legal addressed to all parties listed herein. The service transmission was
reported as complete and a copy of the One Legal Receipt Filing Page/Confirmation will be
21
maintained with the original document in my office.
22
/ X / (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
23 the above is true and correct.
24
Executed on April 12, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
25
26
27 __________________
28 Fay Pugh
14
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW
THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE
Preview
Saul Reiss, SBN 48528 1 reisslaw@reisslaw.net 2 Fay Pugh, SBN 198708 fay.pugh@outlook.com 3 Law Offices of Saul Reiss, P.C. 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E 4 Los Angeles, Ca 90064 5 Tel.: 310-450-2888 Fax.: 310-450-2885 Attorney for Defendants ARA BALJIAN and BMI GROUP, INC. 6 and Defendant/Cross-Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC and 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – COOK BRANCH 10 GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Case No.: 20CV03544 11 ) GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, [Assigned to the Honorable James F. Rigali – ) 12 ) Dept. SM 2] Plaintiffs, ) 13 ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY vs. ) DEFENDANT ARA BALJIAN TO 14 ) ) COMPEL PLAINTIFFS GARY R. 15 ARA BALJIAN, an individual; LE ) HAUENSTEIN AND GWEN J. PHUQUE, LLC, a California Limited ) HAUENSTEIN TO WITHDRAW THEIR 16 Liability Company; BMI GROUP, INC., a ) UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS AND TO California Corporation; DAVID ) PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO 17 ) AGAZARYAN, an individual; MEHRAN ) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SETS ONE 18 aka “MIKE” AGAZARYAN, an ) AND FOR IMPOSITION OF individual; ARMAN KARKOTSYAN, an ) MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE 19 ) individual; and Does 4-50, inclusive, AMOUNT OF $2,535 AGAINST ) PLAINTIFFS GARY R. HAUENSTEIN 20 ) Defendants. ) AND GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN AND 21 LE PHUQUE, LLC, a California Limited ) THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD Liability Company, ) MAJID SAFAIE AND BRIAN STUART 22 ) OF ARYA LAW CENTER, P.C., ) JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; 23 Cross-Complainant, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 24 Vs. ) AUTHORITIES ) 25 ) GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) [Concurrently filed with Declaration of Fay 26 GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Pugh and Separate Statement] and ROES 1 to 50, inclusive, ) 27 ) ) 28 Cross-Defendants. ) 1 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE ) Date: June 6, 2023 1 ) Time: 8:30 a.m. ) 2 ) Place: Dept. SM2 ) 3 ) Complaint Filed: October 27, 2020 ) Trial Date: None 4 5 6 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 7 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 6th day of June, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon 8 thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department SM 2 of the above-entitled Court located 9 at 312-C East Cook Street, Bldg. E., Santa Maria, California 93454, Defendant Ara Baljian 10 (“Defendant”) will and hereby does move for an Order Compelling Plaintiffs Gary E. 11 Hauenstein and Gwen E. Hauenstein (jointly “Hauensteins”) to Withdraw their Objections to 12 the entire set of Form Interrogatories and Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 13 9.1, 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 and 50.6 of the First Sets of Form Interrogatories and for Imposition of 14 Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $2,535 against Hauensteins and their attorney of record, 15 Brian Stuart and Majid Safaie of Arya Law Center, PC, jointly and severally. 16 The Motion is made on the ground that Hauensteins were served with the subject 17 discovery on May 31, 2022. The responses were untimely served in August of 2022, 18 accordingly, objections were waived. However, Hauensteins have failed and refused to 19 withdraw their objections. Furthermore, Hauensteins provided defective responses to Form 20 Interrogatories 9.1, 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 and 50.6. Despite repeatedly promising to provide further 21 responses, Defendant’s numerous meet and confer efforts and extensions granted from 22 September of 2022 to March 2023, Hauensteins have yet to provide further responses and 23 withdraw their objections. 24 This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010, et seq. 25 and 2030.010, et seq. and is based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and 26 Authorities filed herewith, the concurrently filed Declaration of Fay Pugh, the complete files 27 and records in this action, and all other matters and evidence that may be presented at the 28 hearing on this Motion. 2 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 2 Dated: April 11, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C. 3 4 ________________________________ Saul Reiss, Esq. 5 Fay Pugh, Esq. 6 Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN and BMI GROUP, INC. and Defendant/Cross- 7 Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE 3 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS / PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 4 4 A. THE COMPLAINTS. 4 5 B. THE CROSS-COMPLAINT. 5 6 II. THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE IN THIS MOTION AND MEET 7 AND CONFER EFFORTS. 5 8 III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. 6 9 A. HAVING FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TO 10 DISCOVERY, HAUENSTEINS HAVE WAIVED THEIR RIGHT 11 TO ASSERT OBJECTIONS. 6 12 B. HAUENSTEINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM 13 INTERROGATORIES 9.1, 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 AND 50.6 ARE 14 DEFECTIVE. 7 15 i. Form Interrogatory 9.1. 7 16 ii. Form Interrogatory 9.2. 8 17 iii. Form Interrogatory 50.1. 9 18 iv. Form Interrogatory 50.5. 10 19 v. Form Interrogatory 50.6. 11 20 C. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED. 12 21 IV. CONCLUSION. 13 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 PAGE 3 CASES 4 Best Products, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Granatelli Motorsports, Inc.) 5 (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181 8 6 Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771 9 7 Jones v. Sup.Ct. (Benny) (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534 10 8 Leach v. Sup.Ct. (Markum) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902 7 9 Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496 8-11 10 Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64 8, 11 11 Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants 12 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 8 13 14 STATUTES 15 Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.050 6 16 Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.010 12 17 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.010 8, 11 18 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.210 6, 8, 10 19 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.220 8, 10, 11 20 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.230 7 21 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.290 7, 12 22 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.300 7 23 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280 6 24 25 26 27 28 ii NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS / PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 3 A. THE COMPLAINTS. 4 Hauensteins claim to be the owners of three parcels of land, commonly known as 3333 5 Avena Road, Lompoc, California (collectively, the “Property”). According to Hauensteins, 6 Defendants claim to own the Property. Defendants allegedly entered into oral and written 7 agreements, which they breached and have committed fraud. 8 On October 27, 2020, Hauensteins filed their Complaint against Defendants Ara 9 Baljian, Le Phuque LLC and Nationstar Mortgage Company alleging breach of oral contract, 10 fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraud in the concealment, quiet title and declaratory relief. 11 Hauensteins voluntarily dismissed Defendant Nationstar Mortgage Company. 12 Defendants Ara Baljian and Le Phuque’s demurrer to the Complaint was sustained 13 with leave to amend as to all causes of action. 14 On September 17, 2021, Hauensteins filed their First Amended Complaint alleging 15 the same causes of action and added BMI as a defendant. 16 On February 4, 2022, Defendants’ demurrers were sustained as to all causes of action 17 of the First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. 18 Hauensteins filed their Second Amended Complaint alleging the same claims and 19 added three new defendants. 20 On October 4, 2022, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the second, third 21 and fourth causes of action for fraud, fraud in inducement and fraud in concealment, fifth and 22 sixth causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief and granted the motion to strike as 23 to the alter ego allegations, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees request. 24 On or about October 31, 2022, Hauensteins filed their Third Amended Complaint 25 alleging breach of contract and fraud. 26 On December 8, 2022, Defendants filed their answer to the Third Amended 27 Complaint. 28 /// 4 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 B. THE CROSS-COMPLAINT. 2 On December 8, 2022, Cross-Complainant Le Phuque filed its Cross-Complaint for 3 trespass, ejectment and writ of possession against Hauensteins based on the following facts: 4 Hauensteins borrowed $168,500 from Le Phuque memorialized in a Note secured by a deed 5 of trust secured by the Property. The Note provided that 6 “Should the trustor or his successors in interest, without the consent in writing 7 of the beneficiary, sell, transfer or convey or permit to be sold, transferred or conveyed, his interest in the property, or any part thereof, then the beneficiary 8 may, at his option, declare all sums secured hereby immediately due and payable.” 9 Without notice, knowledge or consent of Le Phuque, on May 31, 2019, Hauenstein 10 executed a Grant Deed transferring the Property to The Monterrosa Firm, Inc. On November 11 27, 2019, The Monterrosa Firm, Inc. executed a Grant Deed transferring the Property to 12 Golden Phoenix, LLC. 13 Shortly thereafter, Le Phuque discovered that Hauenstein had transferred the Property 14 and demanded repayment of the loan. Hauenstein claimed that they did not owe any money 15 and refused to repay the loan. 16 In December of 2019, Le Phuque declared the entire amount under the Note due and 17 owing and caused to be recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust. 18 On or about April 30, 2020, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale provided that the sale of the Property 19 would take place on June 3, 2020. On November 11, 2020, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale 20 was recorded by which Le Phuque became the owner of the Property. 21 Since November 11, 2020, Hauenstein have continued to occupy the Property and 22 have failed and refused to vacate the same or pay rent to Le Phuque. 23 II. THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE IN THIS MOTION AND MEET AND CONFER 24 EFFORTS. 25 On May 31, 2022, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (“FI”), Special 26 Interrogatories (“SI”), and Demand for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Sets One on 27 Plaintiffs. (Declaration of Fay Pugh (“Pugh Decl.,”), Exhibits 1 through 7). 28 5 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 On August 24, 2022, after numerous requests by Defendants’ counsel, Hauenstein 2 served objections and defective responses to FIs, SIs, and RFPs. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 7 3 through 12). 4 Hauenstein produced 5,033 pages of documents to Defendant Ara Baljian’s RFPs, Sets 5 One, but have failed to indicate which document is responsive to which demand in the RFPs 6 as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a). 7 From September 3, 2022 to February 20, 2023, Defendants’ counsel met and conferred 8 with Hauensteins’ counsel during which time Hauenstein’s counsel requested additional time 9 to respond and requested extension after extensions, which were granted. The final extension 10 granted for Hauensteins to provide supplemental responses was March 15, 2023 with 11 Defendants’ deadline to file motions to compel is April 14, 2023. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 13 12 and 17). 13 The details of the meet and confer are set forth in the Declaration of Fay Pugh and are 14 not repeated here in order to avoid duplication and waste of the Court’s time. 15 After requesting and being granted numerous additional extensions, no further 16 responses or additional responsive documents has been provided by Hauensteins. 17 III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. 18 Unless excused by protective order, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed 19 is under a duty to respond to each question separately, under oath. Code of Civ. Proc. 20 §2030.210(a). The response is due within thirty days from the date the 21 interrogatories were served. Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.050. 22 A. HAVING FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TO DISCOVERY, 23 HAUENSTEINS HAVE WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO ASSERT OBJECTIONS. 24 The subject discovery were served on May 31, 2022. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 1 and 2). 25 The responses were served after numerous requests on August 24, 2022 and included 26 objections. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 7 and 8, page 2, lines 3-11). No extension for the responses 27 was granted. Accordingly, having served untimely responses, Hauensteins have waived the 28 right to object. 6 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 Failing to respond within the time limit waives most objections to the interrogatories, 2 including claims of privilege and “work product” protection. Code of Civ. Proc. 3 §2030.290(a); Leach v. Sup.Ct. (Markum) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906. Such 4 delay also waives the option to produce writings under Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.230 in lieu 5 of information contained therein. 6 B. HAUENSTEINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 9.1, 7 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 AND 50.6 ARE DEFECTIVE. 8 If a party to whom interrogatories are directed either fails to respond at all, or responds 9 with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court 10 order compelling answers or further answers to the interrogatories. Code of Civ. Proc. 11 §§2030.290 and 2030.300; see Best Products, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Granatelli Motorsports, Inc.) 12 (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-1190. 13 i. Form Interrogatory 9.1. 14 This interrogatory asks “Are there any other damages that you attribute to the incident? 15 If so, for each item of damage state: (a) the nature; (b) the date it occurred; (c) the amount, 16 and (d) the name, address, and telephone number of each person to whom an obligation was 17 incurred.” 18 In response, Hauensteins state: “We have not been able to legally effect documents 19 and leases for any of our 3 parcels of land since LE PHUQUE, LLC has been named on title 20 to all our land with the Santa Barbara County Assessor’s Office due to the direct fraudulent 21 actions of Ara Baljian. We have been prevented from gaining rental income from 3 separate 22 lessees since 2020, because of clouded titles on each of our separate 3 parcels of land caused 23 directly by the fraudulent actions of Ara Baljian.” 24 No responses have been provided to subsections (b) through (d). Unless excused by 25 protective order, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed is under a duty to respond 26 to each question separately, under oath. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.210(a). 27 /// 28 /// 7 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 ii. Form Interrogatory 9.2. 2 This interrogatory asks “Do any documents support the existence or amount of any 3 item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the 4 name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document”. 5 In response, Hauensteins state: “Unknown to Plaintiffs”. 6 The responses are defective. Hauensteins are claiming that they were damaged, 7 accordingly, it is unclear how they do not know of the existence of documents that support 8 their own claims. There is no evidence that that Hauensteins made any effort to obtain the 9 requested information in order to provide complete responses to this interrogatory. 10 A response stating “inability to respond” is legally insufficient. If the responding party 11 lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond, he or she may so state, but only after making a 12 reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other persons or 13 organizations. See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants 14 (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406. 15 “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully 16 to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort 17 to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where 18 the information is equally available to the propounding party.” Code of Civ. Proc. 19 §2030.220(c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 20 1504 (citing text). 21 Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the 22 information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot 23 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” Code of Civ. Proc. 24 §2030.220(a)(b). 25 “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering 26 written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 27 (quotes omitted); see Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.010(f) — evasive response is ground 28 for sanctions. 8 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 iii. Form Interrogatory 50.1. 2 This interrogatory asks “For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: (a) identify each 3 document that is part of the agreement and for each state the name, address, and telephone 4 number of each person who has the document; (b) state each part of the agreement not in 5 writing, the name, address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to that provision, 6 and the date that part of the agreement was made; (c) identify all documents that evidence any 7 part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone 8 number of each person who has the document; (d) identify all documents that are part of any 9 modification to the agreement, and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of 10 each person who has the document; (e) state each modification not in writing, the date, and 11 the name, address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to the modification and the 12 date the modification was made; (f) identify all documents that evidence any modification of 13 the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of 14 each person who has the document.” 15 In response, Hauensteins state: “Cannabis Land Lease from 2016, Backdated 16 Cannabis Land Lease from 2017(backdated to 2015 per mandate by Ara Baljian), Ara 17 Baljian’s “Security Lein” paperwork where he used undue influence and misinformation to 18 gain our signatures. Our daughter, Karin Hauenstein, has all of our documents secured. Her 19 address is: 3333 Avena Road, Lompoc, CA 93436 and her telephone number is (805)944- 20 8110.” 21 The responses are defective because as to Karin Hauenstein having the documents, 22 she was acting as Hauensteins’ agent through a power of attorney and is their daughter. 23 Accordingly, whatever Ms. Karin Hauenstein has in her possession is available to her parents. 24 In answering interrogatories, a party must furnish information available from sources under 25 the party's control: “[A party] cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained 26 from sources under his control.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782; Regency 27 Health Services, Inc. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504 (citing text). 28 9 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 In answering interrogatories, a party is expected to make good faith inquiry of his or 2 her family members, at least where they are shown to be cooperating with the party in the 3 lawsuit. Jones v. Sup.Ct. (Benny) (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534, 552 (disapproved on other 4 grounds by Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 and fn. 8). 5 Second, Hauensteins have not responded to subparts (b) through (f). Unless excused 6 by protective order, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed is under a duty to 7 respond to each question separately, under oath. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.210(a). 8 iv. Form Interrogatory 50.5. 9 This interrogatory asks “Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings unenforceable? If 10 so, identify each unenforceable agreement and state why it is unenforceable.” 11 In response, Hauensteins state: “Unknown to Plaintiffs”. 12 The responses are defective. There is no evidence that that Hauensteins made any 13 effort to obtain the requested information in order to provide complete responses to this 14 interrogatory. 15 A response stating “inability to respond” is legally insufficient. If the responding 16 party lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond, he or she may so state, but only after 17 making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other 18 persons or organizations. See Sinaiko, supra. 19 “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully 20 to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort 21 to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where 22 the information is equally available to the propounding party.” Code of Civ. Proc. 23 §2030.220(c); Regency Health, supra. 24 Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the 25 information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot 26 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” Code of Civ. Proc. 27 §2030.220(a)(b). 28 10 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering 2 written interrogatories.” Scheiding, supra; see Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.010(f) —evasive 3 response is ground for sanctions. 4 v. Form Interrogatory 50.6. 5 This interrogatory asks “Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, 6 identify each ambiguous agreement and state why it is ambiguous.” 7 In response, Hauensteins state: “Unknown to Plaintiffs”. 8 The responses are defective. There is no evidence that that Hauensteins made any 9 effort to obtain the requested information in order to provide complete responses to this 10 interrogatory. 11 A response stating “inability to respond” is legally insufficient. If the responding 12 party lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond, he or she may so state, but only after 13 making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other 14 persons or organizations. See Sinaiko, supra. 15 “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully 16 to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort 17 to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where 18 the information is equally available to the propounding party.” Code of Civ. Proc. 19 §2030.220(c); Regency Health, supra. 20 Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the 21 information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot 22 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” Code of Civ. Proc. 23 §2030.220(a)(b). 24 “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering 25 written interrogatories.” Scheiding, supra; see Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.010(f) — evasive 26 response is ground for sanctions. 27 /// 28 /// 11 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 C. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED. 2 If the party properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court “shall” impose 3 a monetary sanction against the losing party on the motion to compel unless it finds that party 4 acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances render the sanction “unjust.” 5 Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.290(c). 6 Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.010 provides 7 “Misuse of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: 8 … (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. … (f) Making an evasive response to discovery. … (h) Making or opposing, 9 unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.” 10 From September 3, 2022 to February 20, 2023, Defendants’ counsel met and conferred 11 with Hauensteins’ counsel during which time Hauensteins’ counsel requested additional time 12 to respond and requested extension after extensions, which were granted. The final extension 13 granted for Hauensteins to provide supplemental responses was March 15, 2023 with 14 Defendants’ deadline to file motions to compel on April 14, 2023. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 13 15 and 17). 16 After requesting and being granted numerous additional extensions, no further 17 responses have been provided by Hauensteins and they have failed and refused to withdraw 18 their untimely objections. Their failure and refusal to provide further responses despite 19 agreeing to do after numerous meet and confer attempts and extensions granted justifies the 20 imposition of sanctions. By virtue of having to bring the instant motion, Defendant has 21 incurred costs of $60 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,475 as fully explained in the 22 concurrently filed Declaration of Fay Pugh. 23 IV. CONCLUSION. 24 Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court order 25 Hauensteins to withdraw their objections to the entire set of Form Interrogatories and provide 26 further responses to Form Interrogatories 9.1, 9.2, 50.1, 50.5 and 50.6 of the First Sets of Form 27 28 12 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE 1 Interrogatories and impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,535 against Hauensteins 2 and their counsel, jointly and severally. 3 Dated: April 11, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C. 4 5 6 ________________________________ Saul Reiss, Esq. 7 Fay Pugh, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN 8 and BMI GROUP, INC. and Defendant/Cross- 9 Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E, 4 Los Angeles, CA 90064; my email is fay.pugh@outlook.com 5 On April 12, 2023, I caused the foregoing document described as 6 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT ARA BALJIAN TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS GARY R. HAUENSTEIN AND GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN TO 8 WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS AND TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SETS ONE AND FOR 9 IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,535 10 AGAINST PLAINTIFFS GARY R. HAUENSTEIN AND GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD MAJID SAFAIE AND BRIAN STUART OF 11 ARYA LAW CENTER, P.C., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 12 13 to be served on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: 14 Majid Safaie, Esq. majid.safaie@aryalc.com 15 Brian Stuart, Esq. 16 brian.stuart@aryalc.com Arya Law Center, PC 17 3187 Red Hill Ave., Suite 115 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 877-279-2523 18 Fax: 877-235-1558 19 / X / (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused the above-referenced document to be served 20 through One Legal addressed to all parties listed herein. The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the One Legal Receipt Filing Page/Confirmation will be 21 maintained with the original document in my office. 22 / X / (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 23 the above is true and correct. 24 Executed on April 12, 2023, at Los Angeles, California. 25 26 27 __________________ 28 Fay Pugh 14 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INT., SETS ONE