Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 19SMCV02073, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV02073    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200

MOVING PARTY:                    Plaintiffs George C. Kopek, Toni Kopek, Richard S. Lee

RESPONDING PARTY:         Defendants Bagram Mardirossian, 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 homeowners 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’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s November 3, 2022 ruling on the Kopeks’ motions to compel answers to (1) first set of supplemental interrogatory, (2) first set of supplemental demand for production, (3) second set of special interrogatories, (4) fourth set of demand for production, and (5) request for sanctions in the amount of $3,577.75.  Lee also seeks reconsideration on his motion to compel responses to (1) supplemental interrogatory, set one, (2) supplemental demand for production, set one, and (3) monetary sanctions in the amount of $184.34.  The Court had previously ordered Plaintiffs to IDC and to file a Joint Statement on these discovery requests.  Plaintiffs contend that neither an IDC nor Joint Statement was required because Defendants have not provided any responses to their discovery requests.   No opposition was filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008, subdivision (a), “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.  The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order to decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” 

Section 1008 is “the clear legislative intent to restrict motions to reconsider to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or authority that was not previously considered by it” and could not have been considered by it.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)  Section 1008 is the exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking an order.  That limitation is expressly jurisdictional.  (Id. at p. 1499.)

DISCUSSION

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)  All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion.  A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)  The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Further, Code of Civil Procedure §2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct.  Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Plaintiffs represent they have not received a response to the interrogatories and document requests that are the subject of their prior motions.  Accordingly, no IDC or joint statement was required, and the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and will amend its order to grant Plaintiffs’ motions to compel.  Moreover, because there were no responses, the Kopeks are entitled to sanctions pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a) and § 2023.010(d), in the amount of $3,577.75 and Lee in the amount of $184.34 against Defendants Bagram Mardirossian and Susanna Mardirossian, jointly and severally.    

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.  The Court GRANTS the Kopeks’ motions to compel answers to (1) first set of supplemental interrogatory, (2) first set of supplemental demand for production, (3) second set of special interrogatories, and (4) fourth set of demand for production.  The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $3,577.75 in favor of the Kopeks and against Defendants Bagram Mardirossian and Susanna Mardirossian jointly and severally.  The Court GRANTS Lee’s motion to compel responses to (1) supplemental interrogatory, set one and (2) supplemental demand for

production, set one.  The Court GRANTS sanctions in the amount of $184.34 in favor of Lee and against Defendants Bagram Mardirossian and Susanna Mardirossian jointly and severally.   

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2022                                              ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court