Judge: David Sotelo, Case: 20STCV24454, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV24454 Hearing Date: August 8, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Paul
Cargile and Cargile Company Realtors, Inc.
Plaintiffs—tenants living in the buildings located at 1421,
1421 ½ (also known as “Garage B”), 1423, and 1425 ½ Courtland Avenue, Los
Angeles, CA 90006—filed this breach of habitability suit against Miguel
Castaneda (landlord through May 2019), U.S. Bank National Association (landlord
after foreclosure on the Property), and U.S. Bank’s agents at the Subject
Property (Paul Cargile and Cargile
Company Realtors, Inc.) based on allegations that Defendants maintained
substandard conditions on the Property, including defective plumbing, defective
and dangerous electrical systems, bedbugs, rats, and roaches, inadequate
security, dilapidated walls and flooring, torn window screens and inadequately
sealed windows, no smoke detectors and no carbon monoxide detectors, mold, and
unmaintained common areas.
Defendants Paul
Cargile and Cargile Company Realtors, Inc.—U.S. Bank’s agents—now make an
unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Special Interrogatories,
Form Interrogatories, and Documents Requests, Set One served on all the
Plaintiffs on January 26, 2022.
Because the Cargile Defendants properly served discovery
requests within the scope of discovery on Plaintiffs, who failed to respond by
the permissible timeframe plus extensions ending on April 26, 2022, the Cargile
Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED in full. The Court also GRANTS the Cargile
Defendants’ Request for Sanctions because the evidence shows that Plaintiffs
were aware of their discovery obligations through Plaintiffs’ Counsel and
failed to fulfill these discovery obligations despite extensions from the
Cargile Defendants.
Legal Standard: A motion to compel an initial
response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response
to interrogatories or a demand to produce.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (d) [interrogatories],
2031.300, subd. (d) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
390, 404.) To establish this ground, a
movant must show: (1) proper service, (see Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.080, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.040 [demand to produce]);
and (2) expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after
service, (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subds. (a),
(b) [interrogatories], 2031.260 [demand to produce]).
A motion to compel initial responses is not subject to a
45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate
either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement. (See
Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.210-2030.310 [interrogatories], 2031.210-2031.320
[request for production]; see also Sinaiko, supra, 148
Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) Neither is a separate statement required when no
discovery response has been received.¿ (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345,
subd. (b).) However, a court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery
where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (See CBS, Inc.
v. Superior Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; see also Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [scope of discovery, “any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if
the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”].)
Analysis: Defendants Cargile and Cargile, Inc. show
proper service of the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and
Documents Requests, Set One, as made on all Plaintiffs on January 26, 2022.
(Mot., Exs. A [ten Certificate of Service evidencing service of Form
Interrogatories on Plaintiffs], B [Certificate of Service evidencing service of
Special Interrogatories on Plaintiffs], C [Certificate of Service evidencing
service of Documents Requests on Plaintiffs].)
Defendants Cargile and Cargile, Inc. also show the permissible
timeframe to respond to the interrogatories and documents requests has expired
without response from the Plaintiffs. (Mot., Devlin Decl., ¶¶ 4-5 [explaining
that Cargile’s counsel communicated with Plaintiffs’ counsel and extended the
timeframe for Plaintiffs to respond to the discovery requests to April 26, 2022
to no avail, and subsequent follow ups with Plaintiffs’ counsel, who promised
but failed to deliver discovery and otherwise ignored the follow ups]; Exs. A-C
[Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production], D
[copies of correspondence between counsel].)
Last, a review of the Form Interrogatories, Special
Interrogatories, and Documents Requests show that they are within the proper
scope of discovery because these discovery requests ask that the Plaintiffs,
among other things: identify the extent of their claimed damages; identify how
any agreements were breached; state facts and identity individuals confirming
that the Plaintiffs were in fact tenants at the Property; state facts and identity
individuals confirming the habitability allegations regarding illegal
renovations, sewage overflow, and lack of functioning heaters, among others;
state facts and identity individuals confirming that the defendants acted with
malice; state facts and identity individuals confirming damages; produce
documents showing the Cargile Defendants failed to fulfill their obligations as
to tenants; produce documents as to damages, produce documents as to lack of
proper permitting in the Property; and produce documents as to the Defendants
failure to comply with Los Angeles Municipal Code sections.
Legal Standard: The Court must impose monetary
sanctions against anyone—party, nonparty, or attorney—who unsuccessfully makes
or opposes the motion, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted
withs substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of
the sanctions unjust. (See Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (c) [demand to
produce]; see Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 404
[interrogatories and demand to produce].)
The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a
party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the
motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested
discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd.
(a).)
The Court must impose a $250.00 monetary sanction on any
party, person, or attorney who does not respond in good faith to a request for
the production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.050, subd. (a)(1).) This sanction is in addition to any other
sanction imposed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 to
2023.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.050,
subd. (a).)
Analysis: Despite the Plaintiffs nonresponse, the
Court GRANTS the sanctions request of $3,210.00 in favor of the Cargile
Defendants because the evidence shows (Mot., Devlin Decl., Ex. D) that
Plaintiffs were aware of their discovery obligations through Plaintiffs’
Counsel and failed to fulfill these discovery obligations despite extensions
from the Cargile Defendants. The Court also AWARDS an additional $250.00
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, subdivision (a). The
total sanctions thus equal $3,460.00.
Defendants Paul Cargile and Cargile Company Realtors, Inc.’s
Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Special Interrogatories, Form
Interrogatories, and Documents Requests, Set One is GRANTED because these Defendants
properly served discovery requests on Plaintiffs, within the scope of discovery,
and the Plaintiffs failed to respond by the permissible timeframe ending on
April 26, 2022.
Defendants Paul Cargile and Cargile Company Realtors, Inc.’s
Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED because the evidence shows that
Plaintiffs were aware of their discovery obligations through Plaintiffs’
Counsel and failed to fulfill these discovery obligations despite extensions
from the Cargile Defendants.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to remit $3,460.00 to Defendants Paul
Cargile and Cargile Company Realtors, Inc., jointly and severally, within
forty-five (45) days.