Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20STCV09531, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09531    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 15, 2023                          TRIAL DATE: September 12, 2023

CASE:                         SHU-HUI TING, an individual, v. FASHION PARK VILLAS-OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit corporation; BEVEN AND BROCK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC, a California corporation, AND DOES 1 through 50.

CASE NO.:                 20STCV09531

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Shu-Hui Ting

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed April 5, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants to provide further responses to her form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, and requests for admissions.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Shu-Hui Ting’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that her daughter, Huan Chia Tseng (“Ms. Tseng”) drowned due to Defendants Fashion Park Villas-Owners Association and Beven & Brock Property Management Company, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) failure to properly maintain the swimming pool located on the property. Plaintiff alleges that on April 24, 2018, around 10:00 p.m., Ms. Tseng was found unresponsive at the bottom of the deep end of the swimming pool located on the property. Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Tseng was transported to Arcadia Methodist Hospital, where she was declared deceased at 10:50 p.m. Plaintiff alleges that no signs of trauma were observed on Ms. Tseng’s body.

            Plaintiff alleges that the swimming pool had multiple deficiencies, which rendered the pool unsuitable for night-time use. Plaintiff alleges that some examples of the deficiencies include: (1) inadequate underwater pool lighting fixtures that did not completely illuminate all underwater areas; (2) insufficient lighting on the pool deck areas to permit a person walking to identify hazards; and (3) no lifesaving equipment, such as life ring or a fixed-length rescue pool, present and accessible at the pool at the time Ms. Tseng drowned.

            Plaintiff filed this complaint on March 9, 2020, alleging three causes of action for (1) negligence – premises liability, (2) negligence per se, and (3) negligence – res ipsa loquitor. On September 18, 2020, a demurrer was sustained in part to Plaintiff’s complaint as to the second and third causes of action. Thus, only the first cause of action remains.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, and requests for admissions is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff provides that she served her form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, and requests for admissions on October 18, 2022. (Pai Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff provides that Defendants served incomplete and deficient responses on December 21, 2022. (Id. ¶ 5.)

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, and requests for admissions is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, and requests for admissions is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to provide code complaint responses without objections within 20 days of notice of this ruling.  The court also invites the parties to schedule an IDC.

Dated:   May 15, 2023                                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org