1

Filed 10/11/23 Akiyoshi v. Andrade CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not 

certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been 

certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

LAURENCE AKIYOSHI, et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

HECTOR ANDRADE, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 A164244

 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. 

 SCV-268120)

Plaintiffs Laurence Akiyoshi and Christine Akiyoshi (collectively, the 

Akiyoshis) appeal the trial court’s order granting monetary sanctions against 

them in favor of defendants and respondents Louis Andrade, Yolanda 

Andrade DeMaria, and Jaime Andrade (collectively, the Andrade 

Defendants). The court awarded $9,200 in sanctions against the Akiyoshis as 

part of its order denying their motion to compel further discovery responses 

from the Andrade Defendants. The Akiyoshis contend, among other things, 

that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion and 

imposing monetary sanctions. We disagree and affirm.
2

I. BACKGROUND

The Akiyoshis sued the Andrade Defendants and defendant Hector 

Andrade1 (collectively, defendants) for breach of contract and fraud after they 

allegedly failed to repay the Akiyoshis for a loan. On July 17, 2021, the 

Akiyoshis propounded written discovery requests to all defendants. 

Defendants served their responses and objections. On August 22, 2021, the 

Akiyoshis sent a meet and confer letter to the Andrade Defendants regarding

the purported deficiencies in their responses. The letter did not specify a 

date by which the Andrade Defendants were to amend their responses to 

avoid a motion to compel. On August 23, 2021, counsel for the Andrade 

Defendants responded that they would provide amended responses within 10 

days and that a motion to compel was unnecessary.

On August 31, 2021, the Akiyoshis filed a motion to compel discovery 

responses and request for monetary sanctions against all defendants. The 

Akiyoshis argued that the Andrade Defendants made frivolous objections and 

failed to produce any responsive documents. On September 3, 2021, the 

Andrade Defendants, as promised in their August 23 response, served 

amended discovery responses. On September 16, 2021, the Akiyoshis’

counsel sent a second meet and confer letter which stated that the motion to 

compel would remain on calendar unless the Andrade Defendants withdrew 

all their objections to the discovery requests. Counsel for the Andrade 

Defendants refused to do so as he believed the objections were valid and 

timely. 

1 Hector Andrade is not a party to this appeal as the trial court did not 

award any sanctions in his favor. The background section therefore focuses

on the facts relevant to the Akiyoshis’ discovery dispute with the Andrade 

Defendants. We will also refer to Hector Andrade by his first name to avoid 

confusion and intend no disrespect by it. 
3

The parties were thereafter assigned to work with a discovery 

facilitator. On October 15, 2021, the facilitator emailed the parties’ counsel 

that he had reviewed all the documents and concluded that the amended 

discovery responses were adequate and that the motion “should be dismissed 

as moot or denied outright.” The facilitator commented that much of the 

Akiyoshis’ meet and confer was “devoted to extreme ad hominem attacks on 

Defendants’ counsel.” The facilitator proposed that the parties agree to take 

the motion off calendar and noted that he would recommend the imposition of 

sanctions against the Akiyoshis if the motion proceeded to a hearing. 

Counsel for the Andrade Defendants agreed to this proposal but the 

Akiyoshis’ counsel responded that he wanted “complete responses without 

objections within 10 days . . . .” As a result, the motion remained on 

calendar.

On November 1, 2021, the Akiyoshis filed a supplemental motion to 

compel and argued that the trial court should overrule the objections in the 

amended discovery responses and order that the Andrade Defendants provide 

objection-free responses. The Andrade Defendants opposed the motion, 

arguing that their objections were substantially justified and that, 

notwithstanding the objections, they provided full and complete responses.

The Andrade Defendants requested $12,320 in monetary sanctions against 

the Akiyoshis and their counsel for the time counsel for the Andrade 

Defendants spent meeting and conferring and opposing the motion.

In his November 23, 2021 report to the trial court, the discovery 

facilitator concluded that the Andrade Defendants provided substantive 

responses to the Akiyoshis’ discovery requests. The facilitator recommended 

that the Akiyoshis’ motion be denied or dismissed as moot and that sanctions 

be awarded against the Akiyoshis’ counsel “for his failure to meet and confer 
4

in good faith before filing the motion and during the pendency of the motion.”

Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion as it found “the 

rationale of the Discover[y] facilitator sound and independently reache[d] the 

same conclusion.” The court further noted that the Akiyoshis’ separate 

statement failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 

because it improperly required the court to refer to other documents. The 

court awarded $9,200 in monetary sanctions to the Andrade Defendants.2

The Akiyoshis filed their notice of appeal prematurely before the trial 

court entered its order on the motion to compel.

3 The Andrade Defendants 

note this in their brief but do not contend the appeal should be denied on this 

basis. This court, in its discretion, will treat the notice of appeal as having 

been filed immediately after entry of the order pursuant to California Rules

of Court, rule 8.104(d)(2), and therefore timely. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

“We review discovery orders for an abuse of discretion.” (Liberty 

Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 

1102.) The trial court has broad discretion in ordering sanctions and such 

orders are “ ‘subject to reversal only for arbitrary, capricious or whimsical 

action.’ ” (Ibid.)

The Akiyoshis argue that the standard of review should be de novo

because the trial court “was construing statutes about the use of a ‘concise 

outline’ for a Motion to Compel” in lieu of a separate statement. They allege 

2 In this same order, the trial court also denied the Akiyoshis’ motion to 

compel as to Hector but did not award him any sanctions. 

3 The record only contained the ruling on the motion to compel which is 

not an appealable order. We augmented the record on our own motion to 

include the order itself.
5

that the court made comments at the hearing regarding its decision to deny 

the motion to compel based on their use of a “ ‘concise outline’ ” and that the 

court essentially “invit[ed] an appeal to have the Court of Appeal provide 

guidance” on this issue. The Akiyoshis, however, provide no record citation to 

support this claim and concede there was no transcript for the hearing. We 

therefore deem this claim forfeited.4 (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu 

Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 163.)

B. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion.

The Akiyoshis contend that if the standard of review is abuse of 

discretion, the trial court abused its discretion by denying all the relief they 

requested, by “refusing to consider the ‘concise outline’ . . . that both sides 

had used and had believed as appropriate, by not allowing further briefing or 

a modified Separate Statement,” and by imposing $9,200 in monetary 

sanctions against them. We are unpersuaded. As a threshold matter, the 

Akiyoshis’ failure to support their arguments with any record cites or legal 

authority is fatal. It is well-settled that “an appealed judgment is presumed 

correct, and [that] appellant bears the burden of overcoming” that 

presumption. (Boyle v. CertainTeedCorp. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 645, 

649–650.) “When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to 

support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the 

point as waived.” (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 

4 Even if we were to reach the issue, the Akiyoshis’ argument has no 

merit as California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that a motion to 

compel discovery be accompanied by a separate statement. The trial court 

may, but is not required to, “allow the moving party to submit a concise 

outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. 

Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).)
6

784–785.) We therefore deem the Akiyoshis’ arguments waived. But even if 

we did not, none of their contentions show any abuse of discretion by the trial 

court. 

For example, the Akiyoshis contend the Andrade Defendants “should 

have been ordered to provide discovery responses without objections, as the 

[d]iscovery [f]acilitator had suggested should be the outcome.” This 

contention is not only unsupported by the record, it is false. Indeed, the 

discovery facilitator expressly informed counsel that he believed that the 

amended responses were adequate despite the “subject to” objections. With 

respect to Hector’s untimely objections to the Akiyoshis’ discovery requests, 

the facilitator did separately propose that the parties stipulate to an order 

deeming these objections waived. But this proposal as to Hector, who is not a 

party to this appeal, has no bearing on this appeal.

The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in awarding $9,200 in 

monetary sanctions after the Akiyoshis refused to take their motion to 

compel off calendar as proposed by the discovery facilitator despite having 

received substantive amended responses from the Andrade Defendants. 

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), the trial 

court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or 

attorney who unsuccessfully makes . . . a motion to compel a further response 

to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with 

substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of 

the sanction unjust.” The Akiyoshis argue that it was unreasonable for the 

court to award monetary sanctions “to a responding party who is asserting 

wholesale boilerplate objections.” The Akiyoshis, however, cite no supporting

legal authority and provide no analysis as to why the Andrade Defendants’

objections lacked merit. The Akiyoshis have therefore failed to meet their
7

burden as appellants to show any error below. Accordingly, we find that the 

trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motion and awarding 

sanctions. 

The Akiyoshis make other unsupported contentions, including that the 

trial court “never did any analysis of the Objections,” and that the court

should have required further briefing on the adequacy of the objections.

Again, these assertions are wholly unsupported by the record. The Akiyoshis, 

in fact, did file a supplemental brief that discussed the objections contained 

in the amended discovery responses. And there is no evidence that the trial 

court failed to analyze any issues raised in the Akiyoshis’ motion. To the 

contrary, the court specifically stated that it found the facilitator’s reasoning 

to be sound and “independently reache[d] the same conclusion.” Moreover, 

the Akiyoshis provide no legal authority, and we are aware of none, which

obligates the trial court to order or permit further briefing in this instance. 

Lastly, the Akiyoshis argue that the trial court’s ruling was “filled with 

ad hominem attacks” against their counsel which indicated that the court’s 

ruling was not based on an evaluation of the facts and the law. This 

argument is unsupported by the record and is belied by the trial court’s

written ruling—which states that although the Akiyoshis’ “meet and confer 

correspondence can be interpreted by a reasonable person as unjustified 

vilification,” its decision to deny their motion was “rendered on the merits of 

[the] case, and nothing else.” Having no reason to doubt this statement, we 

find that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $9,200 in 

monetary sanctions against the Akiyoshis.

C. Motion for Sanctions.

The Andrade Defendants move for sanctions against the Akiyoshis and 

their counsel for pursuing a frivolous appeal. We may impose sanctions on a 
8

party or an attorney for making a frivolous appeal or appealing solely to 

cause delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(1).) An appeal is frivolous 

“only when it is prosecuted for an improper motive—to harass the respondent 

or delay the effect of an adverse judgment—or when it indisputably has no 

merit—when any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally 

and completely without merit.” (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 

637, 650.) 

We decline to impose sanctions against the Akiyoshis here. While we 

agree that the Akiyoshis’ brief is deficient in its lack of record citation and 

legal authority, it is still the Andrade Defendants’ burden as the moving 

party to show that the Akiyoshis’ appeal is frivolous or intended solely to 

cause delay. The Andrade Defendants do not provide a sufficient summary of 

the underlying discovery dispute in their brief to enable us to determine 

whether sanctions are warranted here. Although we affirm the trial court’s 

order, the Andrade Defendants fail to show that this appeal was prosecuted 

for an improper motive or that it indisputably has no merit. Their request for 

sanctions is therefore denied.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The Andrade Defendants are entitled to 

recover their costs on appeal. 
9

CHOU, J.

We concur.

JACKSON, P.J.

BURNS, J.

Akiyoshi v. Andrade / A164244