Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22CHUD00349, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHUD00349    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant David Abbasi’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff Jerry Davidson to Serve Further Responses to: (1) Requests for Admission; (2) Form Interrogatories; (3) Special Interrogatories; and (4) Requests for Production

Defendant David Abbasi moves to compel plaintiff Jerry Davidson to provide further responses to requests for admission, form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production.  Davidson opposes these motions on the grounds that this case is stayed. 

Davidson is right.  In the related case, David Abbasi v. Jerry Davidson, et al., No. 22STCV18567, Abbasi moved to stay this unlawful detainer action.  On August 22, 2022, the court granted Abbasi’s motion.  The court adopted its tentative ruling, which stated, “The court hereby stays the unlawful detainer action, Jerry Davidson v. Wesley Fisher, et al., No. 22CHUD00349.  The non-jury trial in that action set for August 24, 2022, is hereby vacated.”  (RJN, Ex. 1, p. 6.)  The court also ordered that the stay would be lifted if Abbasi violated any of three specified conditions.  (Id., pp. 6-7.)        

Abbasi claims the court granted “the Motion to Stay in part, ordering the trial, not the entire suit, stayed.  The Court made clear during the hearing that the case itself was not going to be stayed.”  (Reply, p. 2; Supp. Schorr Decl., ¶ 4.)  Abbasi’s counsel states, “My understanding from the hearing was that the Court was only staying the trial itself.”  (Supp. Schorr Decl., ¶ 4.)  Abbasi did not provide a transcript of that hearing. 

The court stayed this entire unlawful detainer action.  There is no such thing as staying only the trial.  Courts delay a trial by vacating or continuing the scheduled trial date—not by “staying” the trial without staying the action.

Sanctions      

In his oppositions, Davidson asks for sanctions against Abbasi.  The court finds sanctions would not be just under the circumstances.  Abbasi pursued discovery and filed these motions on the mistaken premise that discovery was not stayed.  Abbasi sent a meet and confer letter about this discovery on September 28, 2022.  (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 5, Exs. 3-4.)  Davidson did not respond until after Abbasi served the motions on October 3, 2022.

Less than an hour after Abbasi served these motions, Davidson’s counsel replied to object that the motions were improper due to the stay.  (P. Davidson Decl., Ex. A.)  After further correspondence, two days later Abbasi’s counsel stated they would agree to stay these motions until the related case was resolved or the stay was lifted.  She wrote, “We are fine with withdrawing the motions so long as you provide me with at least one week to re-file them after any stay is lifted.”  (Id., p. 3.)  Davidson refused.

Davidson could and should have resolved this dispute informally.  He should have responded to the meet and confer letter before Abbasi filed these motions.  He should have agreed to permit Abbasi to withdraw the motions instead of seeking thousands in sanctions—and threatening contempt—against Abbasi.  Davidson’s counsel avoided the opportunity to resolve this conflict and instead needlessly escalated it.  Imposing sanctions on Abbasi would not be just under these circumstances.

Disposition

Pursuant to the stay, the court hereby vacates the hearings on defendant David Abbasi’s four motions to compel further discovery.  If necessary, the court will reschedule the motions once the stay is lifted.