Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21AHCV00145, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21AHCV00145    Hearing Date: November 6, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      November 6, 2023                                          TRIAL DATE: April 2, 2024

CASE:                         EVA LEUNG-HENGSTEBECK v. KEN HAASE, and DOES 1-10, inclusive.

CROSS:                      KEN HAASE v. EVA LEUNG-HENGSTEBECK

CASE NO.:                 21GDCV00848

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Ken Haase

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Eva Leung-Hengstebeck

SERVICE:                              Filed August 30, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed October 2, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with this court’s previous order.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Eva Leung-Hengstebeck’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Ken Haase (“Defendant”) engaged in unlawful conduct related to Plaintiff’s lease. Plaintiff alleges she was a residential tenant of Defendant at 2395 Roanoke Road, San Marino, California (“Subject Property”) under a lease executed on April 26, 2020.

            Plaintiff filed this complaint on June 18, 2021, alleging eleven causes of action for (1) deceit, (2) false promise fraud, (3) constructive eviction, (4) trespass, (5) rescission, (6) nuisance, (7) relocation assistance, (8) invasion of privacy, (9) harassment, (10) forcible detainer, and (11) retaliation. Defendant filed a cross-complaint on September 8, 2021, alleging five causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) trespass, (3) conversion, (4) trespass to chattels, and (5) negligence.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion to compel compliance and request for sanctions are DENIED.        

DISCUSSION

            On July 20, 2023, this court granted Defendant’s motion to compel further responses. Defendant provides that Plaintiff has failed to provide responses to those discovery requests. (Kent Decl. ¶ 6.) In opposition, Plaintiff provides that she served a further production of documents on November 2, 2023. (Castorina Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.) Defendant’s request is mooted by Plaintiff’s supplemental responses.

            Further, the court notes that Defendant’s motion to compel compliance lacks a statutory basis. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a)(1) provides that a party may respond to a discovery request by stating it will comply with the demand. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, subdivision (a), provides that a party may move to compel compliance if a party fails to respond in accordance “with that party’s statement of compliance.”  Thus, the code sections cited by Defendant do not provide a basis for him to move for an order compelling compliance with a previous court order.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel compliance and request for sanctions are DENIED.        

Dated:   November 6, 2023                                        ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court