Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20STCV41940, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41940    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: A

                                         LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

ALLEGATIONS:

On October 30, 2020, Nicole Ross (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against 6938 Laurel Canyon, LLC (“Laurel”), and Gidi Cohen (“Cohen”), alleging causes of action for: 1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 2) Nuisance; 3) Violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act; 4) Violation of Civil Code section 51.9; 5) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; 6) Negligence; 7) Statutory Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code secs. 1941 and 1941.1); 8) Tortious Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability; 9) Violation of Business & Professions Code sec. 17200 et seq. (Unlawful, Fraudulent, and Unfair Business Practices); 10) Constructive Eviction; and 11) Violation of Civil Code sec. 1950.5.

Plaintiff alleges that Laurel and Cohen are the owners of the property at 6938 Laurel Canyon Boulevard where she resides. Plaintiff further alleges that on or about February 2020, she became aware of the presence of “potentially toxic black mold” at the residence, which maintenance later confirmed.

Cohen—as owner and property manager—blamed the issues on a malfunctioning toilet and pipes in Unit 310 occupied by Kimberly Hunter. On 11, 2021, Laurel cross-complained against Hunter. On August 23, 2021, Hunter answered the Cross-Complaint and cross-complained against Laurel Bliss Condominium Homeowners Association and Infinity Property Services, Inc. (“Cross-Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (1) Negligence; (2) Equitable Indemnity; (3) Contribution, and (4) Declaratory Relief. On her negligence cause of action, Hunter seeks general and special damages, including damages to personal property estimated at approximately $26,000 and loss of use of the apartment of at least twenty days. For the remaining causes of action, she seeks indemnity and contribution from Cross-Defendants for any damages claimed against her in the Cross-Complaint filed against her by 6938 Laurel Canyon, LLC.

HISTORY:

On or about May 26, 2022, Cross-Defendants Infinity Property Services and Laurel Bliss HOA each propounded Requests for Admissions, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production on Cross-Complainant Hunter—for a total of eight requests. Cross-Defendants are represented by the same attorney.

On September 12, 2022, Cross-Defendants filed the eight instant motions to compel responses along with requests for sanctions. The motions are unopposed.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Cross-Defendants move for an order deeming RFAs, Set One, admitted, or in the alternative move to compel responses to RFAs, Set One. Cross-Defendants also move to compel responses to FROGs, Set One, SROGs, Set One, and RPDs, Set one.

In addition to the eight motions, Cross-Defendants make eight requests for $1,546.65 in monetary sanctions.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

            Requests for Admissions

“Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared…” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.250.)

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” and “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a-b).)

“The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

            Form and Special Interrogatories

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party…” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260.)

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response…The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” and “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a-b).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).)

            Requests for Production

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action…” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260.)

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it…The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” and “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a-b).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).)

II.        MERITS

            Discovery

Cross-Defendants each file separate motions to deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted and compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. The eight motions are similar—each argues Cross-Complainant has failed to respond to the discovery requests and that sanctions are appropriate.

Cross-Defendants offer the declaration of their counsel who states that on or about May 26, 2022, Cross-Defendants propounded the various discovery requests on Cross-Complainant. Hampton Decl. ¶ 2. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, responses were due June 25, 2022. Counsel states he informed counsel for Cross-Complainant on or about June 29, 2022 that the responses were due. Id. ¶ 3. Counsel for Cross-Complainant requested an extension and counsel for Cross-Defendants granted one until July 8, 2022. Ibid. Counsel for Cross-Complainant again asked for a three-week extension on July 6, 2022, which counsel for Cross-Defendants granted. Id. ¶ 4. However, as of the filing of the instant motions, Cross-Complainant has yet to respond to the discovery requests. Id. ¶ 5.

Cross-Defendants have met their burden. In addition, the motions are unopposed. “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” Cal. R. Ct. 8.54(c). Accordingly, the motions are granted.

            Sanctions

Cross-Defendants request monetary sanctions with all eight motions. They offer the declaration of their counsel who states his hourly rate is $135 per hour and that he spent 8 hours preparing each motion. Hampton Decl. ¶ 7. Along with a $61.65 filing fee for each motion, this equals eight separate requests for $1,546.65 in sanctions.

The court finds counsel’s hourly rate to be reasonable. However, of the eight hours counsel states he spent on each motion, three were in anticipation of an opposition and reply but the motions are unopposed. Furthermore, the motions are virtually identical—the eight requests for sanctions are redundant. The court finds five hours to be sufficient time to prepare the instant motions. Five hours at $135 per hour equals $675. In addition, Cross-Defendants are entitled to the eight filing fees of $61.65 each, or $493.20 total.

Accordingly, the court awards $1,168.20 in sanctions against Kimberly Hunter.  Sanctions shall be payable within 30 calendar days.

III.       CONCLUSION

The Court grants the motions for an order deeming Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted.

The Court grants the motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

The Court awards $1,168.20 in sanctions.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Cross-Defendants Infinity Property Services, Inc. and Laurel Bliss Condominium Homeowners Association’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses came on regularly for hearing on October 28, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTIONS ARE GRANTED.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,168.20 TO BE PAID BY PLAINTIFF WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  October 28, 2022                           _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles