Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 21SMCV00405, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV00405    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: O

3-4-25 21SMCV00405 Scannell MTC Depo of Justin Kohanoff  - WITHDRAWN

Plaintiff Matthew Scannell's Motion to Compel Deposition and Appearance of Justin Kohanoff and sanctions in the amoutn of $4,495.00 is WITHDRAWN  (See 2-4-25 Notice of Withdrawal - https://civil.lacourt.org/ecourt/cms/doc?docId=106078709&v=106078709.ddf25a24-81960a02) The Motion was filed on 9-9-24, with a stipulation for Kohanoff to appear for deposition filed on 11-26-24. Kohanoff was set to appear for the deposition on 12-12-24. (See 11-26-24 Stipulation.)

3-4 -25 21SMCV00405 Scannell MTC Further FROG Responses  - MOOT

Plaintiff Matthew Scannell's Motion to Compel Further FROG Responses is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's motion was filed on 12-20-24, with an IDC held on 1-27-25 where the Defendant stipulated to filing supplemental responses. Defendant signed and served supplemental responses after the IDC on or around 2-19-25, along with an Opposition to the motion. (Obeid Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1, 2.)  No reply has been filed as of 2-26-25. Defendant declares that Defendant’s counsel did meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel and following a meaningful dialogue, agreed to supplement specific responses. (Obeid Dec. ¶8).Defendant declares the balance of the responses were to be resolved via Stipulation and agreement that Smaili would not testify, which Plaintiffs’ reneged on entering into. (Obeid Dec. ¶8). Defendant's declare that based upon the IDC, Defendant agreed to provide further supplemental responses, and in fact, did provide further supplemental responses. (Obeid Dec. ¶9)

3-4-25 21SMCV00405 Scannell MTC Further Inspection of the Property – DENIED as Time barred

Plaintiff Matthew Scannell's Motion to Compel Further Inspection of Proeprty and Sanctions in the amount of $2,760.00 is DENIED. The motion was filed on 10-20-24, and Defendant filed as opposition on 2-19-25. At the  2-6-24 hearing, Defendant stipulated to allow an inspection of the property’s rear slope only. (Obeid Decl., ¶ 4; see 2-6-24 Minute Order [“Defendant Smaili will permit the scope of the inspection of property on February 13, 2024, pursuant to the notice, without waiving her 5th amendment rights.”].) The inspection occurred on 2-13-24. (Ibid.) More than 45-days passed from 2-13-24 and the filing of the motion to compel further inspection, disguised as a motion to compel, thus Plaintiff waived their right to file a motion to compel further inspection pursuant to CCP § 2031.310 (c).