Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV40317, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV40317    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 14

Johnson, et al. v. Stoneyhill Security Association

Case Background

This is the second of two cases between these parties. According to Plaintiffs, the first case resulted in a settlement that required Defendant to apply rules evenly. It was accompanied by a guarantee from Defendant’s president about how a specific rule governing parking would be enforced. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached this settlement by failing to accommodate their medical issues with respect to the parking requirements and instead launching a campaign of harassment against them.

On August 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Breach of Written Settlement Agreement, (2) Violation of the Fair Housing Act, (3) Violation of FEHA, and (4) Violation of California Disabled Persons Act against Defendants Stoneyhill Security Association (“Stoneyhill”) and DOES 1-10.

On September 14, 2021, Defendant Stoneyhill filed their Answer.

On June 6, 2023, Judge Robert Draper retired and the case was reassigned to Judge Jill Feeney.

On June 12, 2023, pursuant to a peremptory challenge filed by Plaintiffs, the case was reassigned to this department.

            Jury Trial is currently set for May 28, 2024.

Instant Motion

            Defendant now moves this court for an order awarding terminating, issue, evidentiary, or monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Nathan Johnson (“Johnson”) and Shari Edwards (“Edwards”) and their counsel, Mr. Kevin J. Cole.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED.

Discussion

            On October 31, 2023, this court ordered both Plaintiffs to permit an inspection of “their driveway, front exterior of their property, and their garage.” No deadline was imposed for the completion of this inspection.

            On February 1, 2024, at Defense’s request, this court issued an order giving Plaintiffs until March 1, 2024, to complete the inspection. It is undisputed that the inspection has not been completed.

            Plaintiffs explain (without submitting any evidence) that they are now in the middle of divorce proceedings. Plaintiff Edwards apparently has a restraining order against Plaintiff Johnson which prevents him from entering the property. Plaintiffs call this motion a “bullying” tactic.

            The Defense’s attempt to enforce this court’s order is not bullying. While the court acknowledges that divorce proceedings are difficult and draining, they have no legal precedence over these proceedings. Even if there is a restraining order limiting Plaintiff Johnson, Plaintiff Edwards retains the ability to permit the inspection. And she has had many months in which to do so. On the present record, the court sees no excuse for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with its order.

            With that said, this is not a circumstance which rises to a level that would cause the court to issue terminating sanctions. And the court is not inclined to craft issue or evidentiary sanctions in advance of trial and without knowing the precise shape of the case. Nor is the court inclined to issue a further monetary sanctions award, which at this point would be purely punitive.

            Defendant’s remedy at this point is either a motion in limine to exclude evidence, or in offering a jury instruction. To be clear, the court is not committing at this point to exclude any particular item or give any particular instruction. It is merely pointing out that the impact of Plaintiffs’ disobedience of this court’s discovery orders will be decided at trial, when information is most complete and the court is best able to tailor its responses.

Conclusion

            Plaintiffs have disobeyed two court orders to permit inspection of their property. The current record discloses no excuse for this disobedience. However, Defendant’s proper remedy is not in a motion for terminating sanctions. It is a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence, or else a request for certain jury instructions. Therefore, the motion is DENIED.