Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01623/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01623-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

09cv1623

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MISSION CAPITAL WORKS, INC., a

Washington corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SC RESTAURANTS, INC., RICHARD

SANG; RICHIE SANG; and BROOKES

SANG,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-CV-1623-WQH (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER

COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS AND WRITTEN

RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES, WAIVING

OBJECTIONS AND AWARDING

SANCTIONS [Docs. 1, 3]

Plaintiff Mission Capital Works, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) has filed a motion for order

compelling production of documents and written responses to interrogatories, waiving

objections and awarding sanctions. Defendants SC Restaurants, Inc., Richard Sang,

Richie Sang, and Brookes Sang (“Defendants”) did not file an opposition. For the

reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On March 9, 2009, the United States District Court for the Western District of

Washington entered a default judgment of $1,578,814.26 in Plaintiff’s favor against

Defendants. (Pl.’s Mem., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff registered the judgment in the Southern District

Case 3:09-cv-01623-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 28 U.S.C. 1963 reads:

A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any court of

appeals, district court...may be registered by filing a certified copy of the judgment in

any other district...when the judgment has become final by appeal or expiration of the

time for appeal... A judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of

the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner. 

2 09cv1623

of California on April 20, 2009 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1963.1 Id. As of July 22, 2009,

Defendants had not made any payments on the judgment. (Pl.’s Mem. at 2.) Plaintiff

served each of the defendants with post-judgment interrogatories and document

requests on May 27, 2009. (Id. & Exs. 8-13.) The deadline for Defendants to answer the

interrogatories and respond to the document requests passed with no response.

(Sampson Decl., ¶ 23.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent each Defendant a meet and confer letter

on July 6, 2009. (Id., ¶ 24 & Pl.’s Mem., Exs.14-16.) He received no response to the

letters, filed the instant motion on July 27, 2009, and, at the Court’s direction, filed and

served an amended notice of motion and motion on August 17, 2009. (Sampson Decl. ¶

25; Docs. 1, 3.) The Court subsequently requested a supplemental declaration from

Plaintiff’s counsel to address inquiries the Court had regarding service of documents

upon Defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel filed the supplemental declaration on November 24,

2009. (Doc. 6).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND DISCUSSION 

1. Plaintiff has the right to conduct reasonable post-judgment

discovery to aid in executing its judgment against Defendants. 

In an action to aid the execution of a money judgment, a judgment creditor may

take discovery “from any person—including the judgment debtor” as the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure allow “or by the procedure of the state where the court is located.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) allows a party to serve interrogatories, and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) allows a party to serve document requests. California law also

allows a judgment creditor to propound written interrogatories and document requests

upon a judgment debtor “to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.” Cal. Code Civ.

Case 3:09-cv-01623-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 12/10/09 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 09cv1623

Proc. §§ 708.020, 708.030. The judgment creditor “is entitled to a very thorough

examination of the judgment debtor.” Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Intern., Inc., 160

F.3d 428, 430 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Caisson Corp v. County West Bldg. Corp., 62

F.R.D. 331, 335 (E.D. Pa. 1974)). “[T]he presumption should be in favor of full discovery

of any matters arguably related to [the judgment creditor’s] efforts to trace [the judgment

debtor’s] assets and otherwise to enforce its judgment.” Credit Lyonnais, 160 F.3d at

431. 

Here, among the information the interrogatories seek is information regarding

real and personal property the individual Defendants own, Defendants’ employment

over the last ten years, other sources of income during the last ten years, and “all

intellectual property rights,” securities, insurance, memberships, and accounts

receivable that Defendants hold. (Pl.’s Mem., Exs. 2, 5, & 8 at 3-4, 6-8.) Among the

documents Plaintiff seeks are trusts, stock certificates, real property deeds,

“inventor[ies] of personal property,” “statements from all financial institutions,” “savings

account information,” all 1099 and W-2 forms for the past five years, and corporate or

partnership records that indicate money “to be paid to” each defendant “for... services.”

(Id., Exs. 3, 6, & 9 at 4-7.) The Court finds that the information Plaintiff seeks is related

to its efforts to trace the defendants’ assets and otherwise to enforce its judgment, and

thus that its discovery is appropriate. See, e.g., Credit Lyonnaise, 160 F.3d at 431. 

2. Service was adequate as to each of the individual defendants but not

as to Defendant SC Restaurants, Inc. 

The Court previously observed that Defendants’ addresses as set forth on the

May 27, 2009 proofs of service, the July 6, 2009 meet and confer letters, and the July

22, 2009 and August 17, 2009 proofs of service contained various inconsistencies. In

his supplemental declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel explained that he obtained the

addresses on the proofs of service dated May 27, 2009, which accompanied the

interrogatories and document requests from Plaintiff’s Washington counsel, who

represented that the addresses were current as to each Defendant as of May 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-01623-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 12/10/09 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 09cv1623

(Sampson Supp. Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that the interrogatories and

document requests were not returned to him and thus he assumes each Defendant

received them. (Id., ¶ 5.) 

After his retention to assist Plaintiff in the enforcement of the Washington

judgment, Plaintiff’s counsel hired an investigator to find Defendants and their potential

assets and liabilities. (Id., ¶ 7.) He also commenced an internal public records search to

obtain additional information regarding each Defendant. (Id.) These various

investigations yielded the addresses set forth on the July 6, 2009 meet and confer

letters and, according to Plaintiff’s counsel, constitute the last known address of each

individual defendant. (Id., ¶ 8.) The declaration also indicates the letters were not

returned. (Id.) The addresses on the meet and confer letters for each individual

defendant are identical to the addresses on the proofs of service for the instant motion

and amended notice of motion. Thus, the Court concludes that service upon each of the

individual defendants complied with Fed R. Civ. P. 5, which requires documents that are

served by mail to be sent to a person’s last known address. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

5(b)(2)(C). With respect to Defendant SC Restaurants, Inc., however, the declaration

establishes the inability of Plaintiff’s counsel to find its current address, and indicates

that mail sent to its last known address was returned. (Sampson Supp. Decl., ¶ 9.)

Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges that “the motion should proceed [only] against

the individual defendants,” not SC Restaurants, Inc. (Id.) Plaintiff’s motion is accordingly

DENIED as to SC Restaurants, Inc. 

3. The individual defendants have waived all objections to the 

discovery served. 

As part of its motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to waive any objections 

Defendants may assert to the interrogatories and document requests. “It is well

established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time frame required

constitutes a waiver of any objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants,

959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th

Case 3:09-cv-01623-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 12/10/09 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 09cv1623

Cir. 1981)). See also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a) (providing

that the failure of a party to serve a timely response to interrogatories or document

requests “waives any objection to the [discovery], including one based on privilege or on

the protection for work product...”). The Court accordingly finds that the individual

defendants have waived all objections to the interrogatories and document requests

through their complete failure to respond. 

4. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions 

Plaintiff seeks an award of sanctions resulting from the individual defendants’ 

failure to provide any response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Pl.’s Mem. at 4.) Fed

R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(ii) provides, “[T]he court where the action is pending may, on motion,

order sanctions if:...a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under Rule

33 or a request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its answers, objections, or

written response.” “[T]he court must require the party failing to act...to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was

substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (If the court grants a motion to

compel, unless certain exceptions apply, “[t]he court must, after giving an opportunity to

be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion...to pay

the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s

fees.”). 

The Eastern District of California recently considered whether to sanction

defendants for failing to answer the plaintiff’s post-judgment interrogatories and

production requests. Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Network Solutions, Inc.,

2009 WL 3126409 *1, *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009). There, as in this case, the 

defendants totally failed to respond to interrogatories and production requests. Id. The

court determined that the defendants’ change of counsel did not substantially justify the

complete failure to respond to the interrogatories and production requests when the

plaintiff had properly served counsel of record at the time of service, and awarded

Case 3:09-cv-01623-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 12/10/09 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 The Sampson declaration, motion, and amended motion all request $1,400 for

attorney’s fees. (Docs. 1, 3; Sampson Decl., ¶ 29.) However, 3.6 x $400=$1,440. The Court

has used this calculation in determining the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to Plaintiff. 

3 The Clerk of Court is directed to serve this order upon these defendants at the

following addresses: 

Richard J.K. Sang 

PO Box 617 

Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067

Richard W. Sang 

130 W. Guadalupe Road 

Gilbert, AZ 85233 

6 09cv1623

attorney’s fees as a discovery sanction for failure to respond to the discovery requests.

Id. 

The defendants in Wordtech at least provided some reason, albeit an 

insufficient reason, to attempt to substantially justify not responding to the postjudgment interrogatories or document requests. Id. In this case, the individual 

defendants have provided no explanation for their failure to respond to Plaintiff’s

discovery. The Court concludes that no substantial justification or other circumstances

exist that would render sanctions unjust.

Plaintiff seeks an award of $1,440.002 in attorney’s fees for 3.6 hours of attorney

time at $400 per hour. Plaintiff estimated that .9 hours would be spent attending a

hearing on this motion. The Court, however, did not hold a hearing on this motion. The

remaining 2.7 hours sought by Plaintiff are reasonable. The Court accordingly awards

$1,080.00 of attorney’s fees to Plaintiff.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling

production of documents and written responses to interrogatories, waiving objections

and awarding sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants Richard Sang, Richie

Sang, and Brookes Sang shall respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests without

objection within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.3

 These defendants shall also 

Case 3:09-cv-01623-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 12/10/09 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Brookes J.H. Sang 

PO Box 2977 

Palm Springs, CA 92263 

7 09cv1623

pay the sum of $1080.00 directly to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days. The motion

is DENIED as to Defendant SC Restaurants, Inc. 

The Clerk shall close the court file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 10, 2009

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01623-WQH-JMA Document 7 Filed 12/10/09 Page 7 of 7