Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00548, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00548 Hearing Date: February 22, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: February 22, 2024 TRIAL
DATE: No date set.
CASE: PREF PASADENA
COLLECTION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, v. PASADENA COLLECTION
WEST PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, a California mutual benefit corporation; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00548
![]()
MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS
![]()
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Pasadena Collection West
Property Owners’ Association
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff
Pref Pasadena Collection, LLC
SERVICE: Filed January 24, 2024
OPPOSITION: Filed February 5, 2024
REPLY: Filed February 15, 2024
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant moves for relief from
waiver of objections to discovery responses.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff
Pref Pasadena Collection, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Pasadena
Collection West Property Owner’s Association (“Defendant”) failed to abide by
the Declaration of Establishment of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions
(“CC&R”) for the Pasadena Collection West. Plaintiff filed this complaint
on August 5, 2022, alleging three causes of action for (1) declaratory relief,
(2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (#) breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealings.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s
motion for relief from waiver of objections to discovery responses is GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides:
“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is
directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: [¶] (a) 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 under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that
party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following
conditions are satisfied: [¶] (1) The party
has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. [¶] (2) The
party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”
DISCUSSION
Defendant
moves for relief from waiver of objections. Defendant provides that it served
Plaintiff’s requests for the production of documents via email on December 7,
2023. (Sandoval Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant provides that
its counsel belatedly found the email on January 10, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5.)
Defendant provides it served responses after discovering the missed email. (Id.
¶ 9.) Defendant provides it also provided supplemental responses. ((Id. ¶
10.)
In opposition, Plaintiff contends that this motion should
be denied because Defendant failed to strictly comply with the requirements of
the statute regarding its objections. However, given the circumstances
surrounding Defendant’s knowledge of the discovery requests and its attempts to
provide two separate sets of responses, Plaintiff’s arguments are noted but
rejected. Plaintiff is entitled to bring a motion for an order compelling
further responses if it deems that Defendant’s responses are deficient.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s
motion for relief from waiver of objections to discovery responses is GRANTED.
Moving
Party to give notice.
Dated: February 22,
2024 ___________________________________
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. alhdeptx@lacourt.org