Fabric Junctions, Inc. v. Fabric Junction Co. Ltd., et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 316) August 21, 2026 DEPARTMENT 316 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

This is a contract dispute. Plaintiff Fabric Junctions, Inc. alleges that Defendants Fabric Junction Co. Ltd., Manit Rattanarathit, Den Enterprises, Inc., Fred Nehorayan, and Blue Ocean Industries, Inc. improperly cut it of a third-party relationship in which Plaintiff served as the intermediary. Because of this, Plaintiff was not paid thousands of dollars in commission.

On April 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint ("FAC"). The FAC alleges nine causes of action: (1) Breach of Oral Agreement; (2) Breach of Oral Agreement; (3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (6) Intentional Interference with Contract; (7) Unfair Business Practices; (8) Promissory Estoppel; and (9) Accounting.

On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Fabric Junction Co.'s Further Responses. On August 10, 2026, Defendant Fabric Junction Co. Ltd. filed an opposition. On August 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a reply. On August 19, Defendant filed a supplemental declaration attaching supplemental discovery responses purportedly provided to

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is GRANTED in part. Defendant is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,310.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.220, states: (a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.220.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), the Court may order a responding party to serve a further response to interrogatories if any of the following apply: (1) the answer to a particular interrogatory is incomplete or evasive; (2) the exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is improper or inadequate; or (3) that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (d), authorizes a mandatory issuance of sanctions against "any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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."

DISCUSSION

I. Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) Said declaration must demonstrate a "reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2016.040, subd. (a).) Here, the parties discussed Defendant's discovery responses by telephone. (See Fields Decl., P. 5.) Thus, the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2016.040, subd. (a).)

II. Plaintiff's Interrogatories

The Court orders Defendant to provide further responses to a portion of Plaintiff's interrogatories. Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant's further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

On the Special Interrogatories, Set One, Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-8, 15-28, 43-52. The Court believes that the topics covered in these Special Interrogatories are relevant to this matter. More specifically, responses could help determine if Defendants decided to cut Plaintiff out of any deals, and if so, to what extent. The responses could also help lead to the discovery of other useful information and evidence. The Court finds Defendant's objections to the interrogatories unavailing and unmeritorious.

Even if the Court considers the supplemental responses filed with the supplemental declaration, they do not include all of the interrogatories identified above and they are facially deficient. For these reasons, the Court shall compel Defendant to provide further, code-compliant, verified responses. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The Court will not compel Defendant's further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 9-14 because they are the same as Special Interrogatories Nos. 2-8.

In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's motion should be denied because the accompanying separate statement is insufficient. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's separate statement "is devoid of a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses." (Opp'n, p. 4:11-12.) The Court does not agree; Plaintiff's separate statement does provide factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (See Sep. Stmt., pp. 30:18-32:6.) The fact that Plaintiff provided one explanation of the inadequacy of Defendant's responses where Defendant's responses were the same to all of the interrogatories does not make the explanation deficient. Plaintiff's motion shall not be denied because of this reason.

Defendant also contends that Plaintiff's meet and confer efforts were in bad faith or insincere. The Court disagrees. Fields' declaration describes Plaintiff's efforts to resolve all pending discovery issues prior to bringing this motion and the Court finds them adequate. (See Fields Decl., P.P. 4-5, Exhs. 1-2.) Therefore, Plaintiff's motion also shall not be denied because of this reason.

The Court will also order Defendant to provide a verified, code-compliant supplement response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it finds Defendant's response inadequate.

Lastly, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,310. Because Defendant's objections were unavailing and the objection lacked substantial justification, the Court believes that sanctions are warranted. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (d).) The Court finds the requested amount of $2,250 in attorney's fees ($450 per hour for 5 hours) to be reasonable. Therefore, the Court will award the full requested sanctions amount of $2,310.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is GRANTED in part. Defendant Fabric Junction Co. Ltd. is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-8, 15-28, 43-52 and Form Interrogatory 17.1 within twenty days. Defendant Fabric Junction Co. Ltd. is also ordered to pay Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,310 within thirty days of the Court's ruling. | Home -->)" -->