Preview
STEVEN B. PISER, SBN 62414
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER
A Professional Corporation
1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone:
Facsimile:
OmflOWOI-hODtOI—I
(510)
(510)
835-55 82
832-1717 FILED
SAN M M1530 QQUNTY
JOHN L. FITZGERALD, SBN 126613
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 689-1209
Attorneys for
DBP INVESTMENTS,
a California General Partnership
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) CASE No. CIV538897
Partnership, )
)
Plaintifif
MNNNNNMDNHI—‘I—‘I—ll—Il—II—IHI—IH
) OPPOSITION To KING PLAZA CENTER,
) LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL
V.
mflmm-bwwHOOmflmOT-bCDNr—IO
) INTERROGATORY; AND FOR SANCTIONS
) AGAINST DBP INVESTMENTS
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware )
Limited Liability Company, BUA-QUACH, ) DATE NOVEMBER 2, 2017
an individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, ) TIME 9:00 AM.
DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH ) DEPT. LAW & MOTION
LAI, and DOES 1 through 10 TRIAL : MARCH 26,2018
g
Defendants.
g
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware )
Limited Liability Company, ) £31? FAX?
)
V.
Cross—Complainant,
,
)
) mam?“ " ‘- - _-
) OPP
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) Opposition
777754
Partnership and ROES 1 through 10, )
)
Cross-Defendants. ) UIIHlllllllllllllllllllllll1Ill
)
Law Offices of 1
Steven B. Piser To KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC‘s MOTION To COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORY; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DBP
OPPOSITION
INVESTMENTS
“The rule that each specially prepared interrogatory must be ‘full and
,
complete’ by itself (§2030.060, subd. ((1)), together with the rule that ‘[n]o
specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound,
conjunctive, or disjunctive question’ (§203 0. 060, subd. (f)), prevent evasion of
the statutory limit on the number of interrogatories that one party may
propound to another. ”1
Discovery may proceed only as allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure. A trial court has
no authority to allow discovery prohibited by the Code.
\OOO\TO\U1-J>ODIOi-*
(Britt‘s v.Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.
App. 4th 1112, 1128-1129.) “No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a
compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.060(f)).
A question is conjunctive Where it tends to connect or combine more than one thing.2
Is an interrogatory, which seeks information regarding the identities of several different
categories of individuals (“DBP’s guests, agents, and licensees”) who have been “hindered and
obstructed” from entering, using and crossing over property which is the subject of a written
easement, compound and conjunctive?
Interrogatory 35, in King’s third set of special interrogatories, covers a nearly a third of a
page. It contains multiple questions pertaining to different s'ubj ects: this “single”, interrogatory is
in reality, at least nine, and as many as 24 separate interrogatories.
DBP objectedfbecause “This interrogatory is objected to on the grounds it is compound
and conjunctive and is prohibited by C.C.P. §2030.060(f).”
King says that the rule does not apply because the interrogatory addresses a “single
wwwtowwwwwHHHHHHT—AHH‘H
subject.” (King Sep. Stmt., p. 2:17.)
ooxioxm-poowwoxoooxioxmcooroi—lo
What is that single subject?
According to King’s motion, “the interrogatory here addresses a single subject: who are
the people that DBP claims were interfered with?”3
But that’s not quite how the interrogatory reads:
IDENTIFY each of DBP’s guests, agents, and licensees who DBP contends have been
wrongfully and knowingly hindered and obstructed form using and crossing over a
portion of the property constituting DBP’s easement property rights and described in
‘Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1287-1288.
2“Conjunctivemdj. 1. Joining; associative; connective. 2. Jointed together; combined. 3. Abbr.conj. Grammar. A.
Of or used as a conjunction. B. Serving to connect elements of meaning and construction in a sentence, as and and
moreover.
" (The American Heritage Dictionary (1976), p. 282.)
3Separate Statement p. 3:19-20.
Lmv Offices of 2
Steven B. Plser LLC’s MOTION To COMPEL SPECIAL
OPPOSITION To KING PLAZA CENTER, IN'I‘ERROGATORY; AND FOR SANC'I‘IONS AGAINST DBP
INVESTMENTS
Exhibit A to the first amended complaint, as alleged in paragraph 19 of the first amended
complainthich reads in relevant part: “Defendants, Quach, Lien, Wong and Ly, and
each of them, have wrongfully and knowingly hindered and obstructed DBP‘s and its
guests, agents and licensees rights to enter, use and cross-over a portion of the property
constituting DBP’s easement rights."
toooxioxm-b'oatoH
The terms “guests,” “agents," and “licensees” have different meanings; “wrongfully and
“knowingly” have different meanings; “hindered” and “obstructed” have different meanings;
and, “enter,” “using” and “crossing-over" have different meanings. And different responses as to
The facts are undisputed. The law is clear. The definitions of the words “conjunctive” or
H “disjunctive" are not subject to dispute. This interrogatory is not code-compliant and a further
i-n
response may not be ordered.
o—a
DBP acted with substantial justification
p—n
King could have followed the rules. It could have served separate interrogatories for each
l—I
of the inquiries contained within Interrogatory No. 35. it could have done this after it was
i—I
notified that it failed to comply with section 2030.060(i), and avoided this motion.
I—1 King’s motion requests sanctions. But the motion does not provide any basis for an
5—1
award of sanctions. To the contrary, the record shows that DBP at all times acted with
H substantial justification.
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER
DMt—I
A Professional Corporation
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD
t0
{0
DATED: Octoberggg 2017 By:
KO
DBP INVE MENTS, a Califomi‘a
General Partnership
IONIC
A\__A
_
l0
Law Office: of 3
Plur
Steven B. OPPOSITIONT0 KING PLAZA CENTER. LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORY: AND FOR SANCT IONS AGAINST DBP
INVESTM ENTS
PROOF OF SERVICE BY U. S. MAIL
‘
DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center, LLC And Related Cross-Action
San Mateo County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Case #CIV538897
I, Esperanza Izazaga, declare the following:
I am employed in Alameda County, am over eighteen years of age, and am
roooxiowmeoo'wv-a
California,
not a party to the within action or proceeding. My business address is 1300 Clay Street, Suite
1050, Oakland, California 94612.
On October 20, 2017, I served a copy of:
OPPOSITION To KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC’S MOTION To COMPEL SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DBP INVESTMENTS
by placing said copy sealed in an envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Attorneys for King Plaza Center, LLC Attorneys for Bun-Quack, Sovan Lien, Dong Vuong,
Ronald R. Rossi Thanh Lat
Madolyn on James M. Barrett
Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck Law Ofiice ofJames M Barrett
5150 El Cammo Real, Surte D22
1960 The Alameda ’ Suite 200
Los Altos, Cahforma 94022
San Jose: CA
.
95126 Telephone: (650) 969-3687
Telephone: (408) 261-4252 Facsimile: (650) 969-3699
Facsimile: (408) 261-4292
with postage thereon fully prepaid, and thereafter was deposited in the United States Mail at
Oakland, California. That there is a delivery service by the United States Mail at the place
addressed. That the date of deposit in the mail was October 20, 2017.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
LONDIOIQLONKOLQHHI—Ir—Ir—II—Iv—Ir—Ii—Ir—I
Executed
October 20, 2017, at Oakland, California.
r
OOfimm-DODNHOOOOVIChm-DCDNHO
“into all
'
Espelranza 1412a,!) CL;
Law Offices of
Steven B. Plser PROOF OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL
Preview
STEVEN B. PISER, SBN 62414 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER A Professional Corporation 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: Facsimile: OmflOWOI-hODtOI—I (510) (510) 835-55 82 832-1717 FILED SAN M M1530 QQUNTY JOHN L. FITZGERALD, SBN 126613 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 689-1209 Attorneys for DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Partnership IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) CASE No. CIV538897 Partnership, ) ) Plaintifif MNNNNNMDNHI—‘I—‘I—ll—Il—II—IHI—IH ) OPPOSITION To KING PLAZA CENTER, ) LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL V. mflmm-bwwHOOmflmOT-bCDNr—IO ) INTERROGATORY; AND FOR SANCTIONS ) AGAINST DBP INVESTMENTS KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware ) Limited Liability Company, BUA-QUACH, ) DATE NOVEMBER 2, 2017 an individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, ) TIME 9:00 AM. DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH ) DEPT. LAW & MOTION LAI, and DOES 1 through 10 TRIAL : MARCH 26,2018 g Defendants. g KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware ) Limited Liability Company, ) £31? FAX? ) V. Cross—Complainant, , ) ) mam?“ " ‘- - _- ) OPP DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) Opposition 777754 Partnership and ROES 1 through 10, ) ) Cross-Defendants. ) UIIHlllllllllllllllllllllll1Ill ) Law Offices of 1 Steven B. Piser To KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC‘s MOTION To COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORY; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DBP OPPOSITION INVESTMENTS “The rule that each specially prepared interrogatory must be ‘full and , complete’ by itself (§2030.060, subd. ((1)), together with the rule that ‘[n]o specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question’ (§203 0. 060, subd. (f)), prevent evasion of the statutory limit on the number of interrogatories that one party may propound to another. ”1 Discovery may proceed only as allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure. A trial court has no authority to allow discovery prohibited by the Code. \OOO\TO\U1-J>ODIOi-* (Britt‘s v.Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1128-1129.) “No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.060(f)). A question is conjunctive Where it tends to connect or combine more than one thing.2 Is an interrogatory, which seeks information regarding the identities of several different categories of individuals (“DBP’s guests, agents, and licensees”) who have been “hindered and obstructed” from entering, using and crossing over property which is the subject of a written easement, compound and conjunctive? Interrogatory 35, in King’s third set of special interrogatories, covers a nearly a third of a page. It contains multiple questions pertaining to different s'ubj ects: this “single”, interrogatory is in reality, at least nine, and as many as 24 separate interrogatories. DBP objectedfbecause “This interrogatory is objected to on the grounds it is compound and conjunctive and is prohibited by C.C.P. §2030.060(f).” King says that the rule does not apply because the interrogatory addresses a “single wwwtowwwwwHHHHHHT—AHH‘H subject.” (King Sep. Stmt., p. 2:17.) ooxioxm-poowwoxoooxioxmcooroi—lo What is that single subject? According to King’s motion, “the interrogatory here addresses a single subject: who are the people that DBP claims were interfered with?”3 But that’s not quite how the interrogatory reads: IDENTIFY each of DBP’s guests, agents, and licensees who DBP contends have been wrongfully and knowingly hindered and obstructed form using and crossing over a portion of the property constituting DBP’s easement property rights and described in ‘Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1287-1288. 2“Conjunctivemdj. 1. Joining; associative; connective. 2. Jointed together; combined. 3. Abbr.conj. Grammar. A. Of or used as a conjunction. B. Serving to connect elements of meaning and construction in a sentence, as and and moreover. " (The American Heritage Dictionary (1976), p. 282.) 3Separate Statement p. 3:19-20. Lmv Offices of 2 Steven B. Plser LLC’s MOTION To COMPEL SPECIAL OPPOSITION To KING PLAZA CENTER, IN'I‘ERROGATORY; AND FOR SANC'I‘IONS AGAINST DBP INVESTMENTS Exhibit A to the first amended complaint, as alleged in paragraph 19 of the first amended complainthich reads in relevant part: “Defendants, Quach, Lien, Wong and Ly, and each of them, have wrongfully and knowingly hindered and obstructed DBP‘s and its guests, agents and licensees rights to enter, use and cross-over a portion of the property constituting DBP’s easement rights." toooxioxm-b'oatoH The terms “guests,” “agents," and “licensees” have different meanings; “wrongfully and “knowingly” have different meanings; “hindered” and “obstructed” have different meanings; and, “enter,” “using” and “crossing-over" have different meanings. And different responses as to The facts are undisputed. The law is clear. The definitions of the words “conjunctive” or H “disjunctive" are not subject to dispute. This interrogatory is not code-compliant and a further i-n response may not be ordered. o—a DBP acted with substantial justification p—n King could have followed the rules. It could have served separate interrogatories for each l—I of the inquiries contained within Interrogatory No. 35. it could have done this after it was i—I notified that it failed to comply with section 2030.060(i), and avoided this motion. I—1 King’s motion requests sanctions. But the motion does not provide any basis for an 5—1 award of sanctions. To the contrary, the record shows that DBP at all times acted with H substantial justification. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER DMt—I A Professional Corporation LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD t0 {0 DATED: Octoberggg 2017 By: KO DBP INVE MENTS, a Califomi‘a General Partnership IONIC A\__A _ l0 Law Office: of 3 Plur Steven B. OPPOSITIONT0 KING PLAZA CENTER. LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORY: AND FOR SANCT IONS AGAINST DBP INVESTM ENTS PROOF OF SERVICE BY U. S. MAIL ‘ DBP Investments v. King Plaza Center, LLC And Related Cross-Action San Mateo County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction Case #CIV538897 I, Esperanza Izazaga, declare the following: I am employed in Alameda County, am over eighteen years of age, and am roooxiowmeoo'wv-a California, not a party to the within action or proceeding. My business address is 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050, Oakland, California 94612. On October 20, 2017, I served a copy of: OPPOSITION To KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC’S MOTION To COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORY; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DBP INVESTMENTS by placing said copy sealed in an envelope(s) addressed as follows: Attorneys for King Plaza Center, LLC Attorneys for Bun-Quack, Sovan Lien, Dong Vuong, Ronald R. Rossi Thanh Lat Madolyn on James M. Barrett Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck Law Ofiice ofJames M Barrett 5150 El Cammo Real, Surte D22 1960 The Alameda ’ Suite 200 Los Altos, Cahforma 94022 San Jose: CA . 95126 Telephone: (650) 969-3687 Telephone: (408) 261-4252 Facsimile: (650) 969-3699 Facsimile: (408) 261-4292 with postage thereon fully prepaid, and thereafter was deposited in the United States Mail at Oakland, California. That there is a delivery service by the United States Mail at the place addressed. That the date of deposit in the mail was October 20, 2017. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. LONDIOIQLONKOLQHHI—Ir—Ir—II—Iv—Ir—Ii—Ir—I Executed October 20, 2017, at Oakland, California. r OOfimm-DODNHOOOOVIChm-DCDNHO “into all ' Espelranza 1412a,!) CL; Law Offices of Steven B. Plser PROOF OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL