Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV09624, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09624    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: 32

 

MARTA ALICIA VASQUEZ RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

                        Plaintiffs,

            v.

 

MCP MIRADA LLC, et al.,

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  23STCV09624

  Hearing Date:  January 5, 2024

 

     [TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiffs’ motions to compel responses

 

 

BACKGROUND

            On April 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this habitability action against Defendants MCP Mirada LLC, Urban Neighborhood Los Angeles MB LLC, Wilshire Properties Inc., and Property Management Associates Inc. Plaintiffs consist of eight tenants of an apartment complex, and Defendants are the alleged owners or managers of the subject property.

            Plaintiffs have filed six motions to compel against Defendants Urban Neighborhood Los Angeles MB LLC and Property Management Associates Inc., set for hearing on January 5, 8, 10, and 12, 2024. Because the motions concern identical issues, and Defendants’ opposition argument is identical for each motion, all of the motions are advanced to this date (January 5) and heard.

LEGAL STANDARD

Discovery responses are due 30 days after service of the requests, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), 2033.250(a).) If a responding party fails to respond in time, the propounding party may move for an order compelling the responses or deeming matters admitted. (Id., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280(b).) The responding party also waives its objections. (Id., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).)  

DISCUSSION

            Here, the discovery requests were served on July 20, 2023. (Leon Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) The responses were originally due on August 21, 2023, but Plaintiffs granted multiple extensions to December 1, 2023. (Id., ¶ 4.) Defendant did not serve responses until December 20, 2023, after the motions were filed. (Anderson Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. D.)

            Defendants’ oppositions are limited to the issue of sanctions. Defense counsel initially requested an extension to September 13, 2023, which Plaintiffs’ counsel granted. (Leon Decl., Ex. C.) However, defense counsel inadvertently failed to calendar the due date of the responses. (Anderson Decl. ¶ 4.) When defense counsel realized the error, he contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel to request an extension. (Anderson Decl. ¶ 5; Leon Decl., Ex. C.) Multiple further extensions were granted until the final due date became December 1, 2023. (Leon Decl., Ex. C.) However, defense counsel fell ill on November 30, 2023 and was out of work until December 8, 2023. (Anderson Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.) Defendant itself faced challenges compiling responsive documents after a new compliance manager took over. (Bitzer Decl. ¶ 8.)

            Sanctions are warranted for the delay forcing Plaintiffs to file these motions. However, the Court reduces the amount based on the mitigating circumstances discussed above. The reasonable amount is $1,200, representing 3 hours at $400 per hour.      

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motions to compel responses are GRANTED. Within 10 days, Defendants Urban Neighborhood Los Angeles MB, LLC and Property Management Associates Inc. shall produce responses to the subject discovery. The Court sanctions Defendants and their counsel in the total amount of $1,200, to be paid within 30 days.