Judge Elaine Lu, Case 20STCV20074 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

On May 27, 2020, Plaintiffs Hector Olvera, et al.,[1] (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant habitability action against Defendants Sylmar Foothill LLC, Eden Garden Apartments, LLC, and Apartment Investments Inc. On June 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed two Doe amendments naming Winstar Properties, LLC and Winstar Properties, Inc.^{^[2]} as Does 1 and 2 respectfully.

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Sylmar Foothill LLC, Eden Garden Apartments, LLC, Apartment Investments Inc., and Winstar Properties, LLC asserting seven causes of action for (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, (2) Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability, (3) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, (4) Negligence, (5) Violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, (6) Private Nuisance, and (7) Declaratory Relief.[3] Trial is currently set for February 6, 2023.

On April 7, 2022, Defendants Sylmar Foothill LLC and Eden Garden Apartments, LLC (jointly “Moving Defendants”) filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions seeking the dismissal of Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez. On August 11, 2022, Moving Defendants filed an amended notice of motion and motion for terminating sanctions seeking the dismissal of Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez. No opposition or reply has been filed.

Defendants are managers and/or owners of the apartment building at 10237-10261 Western Ave, Downey CA 90241-2451 (“Apartments”). (SAC ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs are those who have been or are now tenants of the Apartments over the last four years. (SAC ¶ 2.) Defendants failed to correct numerous substandard conditions of which Defendants were or should have been aware during Plaintiffs’ respective tenancies. (SAC ¶ 8.)

“Specifically, the deficiencies in the apartment building include, but are not limited to the failure to:

a. Maintain the building from cockroaches, flea, mite, bedbug, or other vermin infestation. Seal all cracks and crevices to eliminate cockroach and other vermin harborages as required by Health and Safety Code § 17920.3(J) and other applicable laws.

b. Provide and maintain approved screening (16 mesh or smaller) set in tight-fitting frames to all operable windows, and to all other openings in the exterior walls of buildings as required by California Civil Code § 1941.1 and other applicable laws.

c. Maintain all bathrooms, toilet rooms and their fixtures in good repair and free from corrosion as required by the California Building Standards Codes §§407.1 and 407.2.

d. Maintain the counters/drain boards for kitchen sinks, bathroom lavatories, and adjacent wall and/or floor surfaces in a manner to prevent water damages, and/or in a clean and sanitary condition and free from dirty or foreign materials. Health and Safety Code § l 7920.3(a)(13).

e. Maintain all exits, hallways, corridors, and stairways with required lighting.

f. Provide and maintain required Smoke Detectors as required by the California Building Standards Code §§907.2.3.6.l and 907.2.3.9.2 and all other applicable laws.

g. Replace broken smoke detectors as required by the California Building Standards Code §907.2.3.92 and all other applicable laws.

h. Maintain all doors, door frames and cabinet doors in good repair as required by the Health and Safety Code § l 7920.3(a)(l3).

i. Maintain all windows and window sashes in good repair as required by California Civil Code § 1941.1 and all other applicable laws.

j. Maintain all electrical equipment, including the service panel, subpanels, conduits, wiring, switches, outlets, fixtures in good repair Health and Safety Code§ 17920.33( d) .

k. Maintain or install approved hard-wired Smoke Detectors at the required locations California Building Standards Code §907.2.3. c.i.

l. Maintain all electrical switches, receptacles and other outlets with protective plates as required by the National Electrical Code 370-15 and other applicable laws.

m. Maintain all electrical outlets in bathrooms, and all electrical outlets in kitchens located within 6 feet of sinks, with ground fault interruption protection as required by the National Electrical Code 210-8 and other applicable laws.

n. Maintain all plumbing lines and plumbing fixtures free from defects. Correct any loose, leaky, clogged or otherwise faulty toilets, faucets, sinks, showers, bathtubs and plumbing lines as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code, §§302; 801; 907, the California Building Standards Codes §§407.2 and 407.3 and other applicable laws.

o. Maintain enamel surfaces on sinks and bathtubs in good repair as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code §901 and other applicable laws.

p. Maintain the wall areas adjacent to sinks, showers, and bathtubs in good repair as required by the Health and Safety Code § 17920.3.c and all other applicable laws.

q. Always provide and maintain the required central or individual room heating appliance in good repair and operable as required by the Health & Safety Code Section l 7920.3a.6 and other applicable laws.

r. Maintain the required mechanical or natural bathroom ventilation as required by Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3c and other applicable laws.

s. Maintain the required appliance venting system in a good and safe condition, and in conformance with applicable laws at the time of insulation as required by Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3.c.” (SAC ¶ 9.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .” Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery . . . .”

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 [quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246].) “Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Ibid. [citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491 disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, fn.4, [terminating sanctions imposed against the plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes].)

However, “a penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

Moving Defendants move for terminating sanctions, specifically, the dismissal of Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez for their failure to comply with the Court’s January 11, 2022 order.

On January 11, 2022, the Court granted Moving Defendant’s motion to compel discovery from Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez. (Order 1/11/22.) Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez to serve verified, code compliant responses to Moving Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One and Moving Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One no later than February 26, 2022. (Order 1/11/22; Torsney Decl. ¶ 4.) On January 12, 2022, Moving Defendants filed and served notice of the Court’s January 11, 2022 order on Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez. (Torsney Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) However, Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez have still not complied with the Court’s January 11, 2022 order. Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez have failed to serve responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One and the Request for Production of Documents, Set One as ordered. (Torsney Decl. ¶ 4.) “[Moving Defendants] are prejudiced by OSCAR SAINZ, EDUARDO CAMPUS, AND MARLENE LOPEZ’s failure to respond to discovery as [they] cannot adequately prepare for trial since these plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery that would have defined their damages and causes of action.” (Torsney Decl. ¶ 5.)

Based on this evidence, the Court finds Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez had knowledge of Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez’s discovery obligations and the Court order compelling Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez’s compliance. Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez have failed to comply with the January 11, 2022 Discovery Order to provide discovery responses for more than seven months. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez have engaged in conduct that is a misuse of discovery by disobeying the Court’s order to serve verified responses, without objections, to discovery requests. Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez were served with notice of the Court’s order to serve verified responses. Yet, Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez have failed to file any opposition, leading this court to conclude that Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez have no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487; Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796-797.) Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez’s failure to oppose the instant motion further demonstrates that their noncompliance is willful. In light of Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez’s failure to comply with the Court’s January 11, 2022 order and their demonstrated disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds that lesser sanctions will not induct their compliance with court orders. Moving Defendants are thus entitled to a court order imposing terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez.

Based on the forgoing, Defendants Sylmar Foothill LLC and Eden Garden Apartments, LLC’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus and Marlene Lopez’s claims against Defendants Sylmar Foothill LLC and Eden Garden Apartments, LLC is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez are dismissed from the Second Amended Complaint only as to Moving Defendants Sylmar Foothill LLC and Eden Garden Apartments, LLC.

All parties should note that the instant order applies only to Moving Defendants Sylmar Foothill LLC and Eden Garden Apartments, LLC. The other remaining defendants – Apartment Investments, Inc. and Winstar Properties LLC – have not moved for relief, and thus, Plaintiffs Oscar Sainz, Eduardo Campus, and Marlene Lopez’s claims against Apartment Investments, Inc. and Winstar Properties LLC remain pending and are not affected by the instant order.

Moving Parties to give notice to all parties and file proof of service of such within three court days.

[1] There are 136 named Plaintiffs. For the purposes of efficiency, the Court declines to list each Plaintiff individually.

[2] On March 7, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ oral request to dismiss Winstar Properties, Inc. without prejudice.

[3] On August 5, 2022, the Court sustained Sylmar Foothill LLC, Eden Garden Apartments, LLC, and Winstar Properties, LLC’s demurrer to the seventh cause of action of the SAC without leave to amend.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26