Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 19SMCV02073, Date: 2022-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV02073    Hearing Date: November 3, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200

MOVING PARTY:                    Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants George C. Kopek, Toni Kopek and Richard S. Lee

RESPONDING PARTY:         Defendants and Cross-Plaintiffs Bagram Mardirossian and Susanna Mardirossian

BACKGROUND

This case involves a dispute over parking spaces.  Plaintiffs George C. Kopek, Toni Kopek and Richard Lee live in a condominium building in Pacific Palisades and claim ownership of two parking spaces, G114 and G116.  They contend Defendants Bagram and Susanna Mardirossian are illegally occupying the spaces.  They have also sued their home owners association, Casa Gateway Homeowners Association (“Casa Gateway”), for failing to enforce bylaws and a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s). Their complaint alleges claims for ejectment, preliminary injunction, trespass, nuisance, quiet title and enforcement of “governing documents”.

Defendants Bagram and Susanna Mardirossian have cross claimed against Plaintiffs and Casa Gateway.  They allege they are owners of the parking spaces by virtue of adverse possession.  They claim they have exclusively possessed and used the parking spaces (which are located below their unit) for more than 20 years. Their cross complaint alleges claims for adverse possession, prescriptive easement and declaratory relief. 

Defendant Casa Gateway has cross-claimed against Moe Defendants.  It claims that in the event it is found liable to Plaintiffs, such liability will be due to acts or omissions of the Moe Defendants.  Its cross-complaint alleges claims for equitable and implied indemnity, apportionment and contribution, and declaratory relief.

This hearing is on Plaintiffs’ motions to compel answers to (1) supplemental interrogatory, set one, (2) supplemental demand for production, set one, (3) first set of supplemental interrogatory, (4) first set of supplemental demand for production, (5) second set of special interrogatories and (5) fourth set of demand for production.  Plaintiffs have also filed motions for monetary sanctions.          

DISCUSSION

In their motions, Plaintiffs argue Defendants have failed to serve any responses to various discovery requests.  In opposition, Defendants contend they provided responses after Plaintiffs’ motions were filed, and the motions are therefore moot.  Defendants asked Plaintiffs to take their motions off calendar in light of the responses, but Plaintiffs refused. 

Pursuant to this Department’s rules, if the parties are unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes, they are required to schedule an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”).  In the event the dispute is not resolved in IDC, “the parties are required to file a JOINT STATEMENT, consisting of a four column document set up as follows: The first column will identify the number of the discovery request; the second, the text of the discovery request, the third, the text of the response, and the fourth, brief bullet point statements, one from each party, as to why a further response should or should not be compelled.” 

There is no indication in the record that there has been an IDC on Plaintiffs’ motions.  Nor have the parties submitted a joint statement.  Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions without prejudice.   

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions to compel without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2022                                                ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court