Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCP01276, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01276    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     September 21, 2022                            TRIAL DATE:  No date set.

CASE:                         JERALD PTASHKIN and NICK HOOGENDYK, Petitioners, v. CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD; WEST HOLLYWOOD CITY COUNSEL; and DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, Respondents, and FF1, LLC; EDWARD LEVIN; and ROES 1 to 100, inclusive, Real Parties in Interest.

CASE NO.:                 22STCP01276

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FURTHER RESPONSES SUPPLEMENT

            Scope of Discovery in the Present Case

            In the present case, the Civil Discovery Act clearly applies. “The Civil Discovery Act applies to both civil actions and special proceedings of a civil nature. [Citations.] A petition for writ of mandate is a special proceeding.” (Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 777.) “[A]bsent a statutory exemption precluding discovery, the discovery act applies ‘to every civil action and special proceeding of a civil nature.’ ” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Courty (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 285.) As applied to special proceedings, “the right to discovery nonetheless ‘remains subject to the trial court’s authority to manage and limited discovery as required’” (emphasis added) (Id. at p. 288.)

            “CEQA sets strict time requirements to protect the public interest in speedy resolution of CEQA challenges. CEQA requires that a petitioner request a hearing within 90 days from the date a petition alleging CEQA noncompliance is filed, or be subject to dismissal. (§ 21167.4(a).) The trial court establishes a briefing schedule upon receiving the request for a hearing, with briefing completed 90 days from the date of the request absent good cause for delay. (§ 21167.4, subd. (c).) To the extent feasible, the hearing is held within 30 days of the completion of briefing. (Ibid.) The legislature thus plainly intended that a CEQA challenge be heard within 210 days of commencement, or roughly seven months, absent exceptional circumstances.” (Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Com. v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 961, 968.)

            Thus, in the present case, the Court makes its determination of the permissible scope of discovery by balancing the parties’ interest in obtaining valid discovery against the legislature’s clear intent to subject CEQA cases to an expeditated schedule.

            Supplemental Application

            Granted

RFA No. 9: Admit YOU have only filed CEQA Petitions to thwart projects owned by Iranians.

            Denied

RFP No. 38: All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO your “partnership” with the man that appeared at the settlement conference.

RFA No. 8: Admit YOUR partner called RAMIN BASSAM a carpet bagger.

Dated:   September 21, 2022                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    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