Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 22AHCV00264, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances: All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B

Plaintiffs Meredith Paz and Victor Paz (“Plaintiffs”) allege that their home is a wood-frame, single family, one-story dwelling located at 1100 Arno Drive in Sierra Madre. They allege that Defendant City of Sierra Madre (“City”) controls and operates a main water pipe located along and directly above Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs allege that beginning August 1, 2021, they noticed a large amount of water on and underneath the property and that water continues to seep onto and under their property. They allege that City’s conduct, including but not limited to their construction, design, management, maintenance, operation, and/or control of its water pipes, as well as its failures to appreciate the impact and danger the water pipes would cause adjacent real property caused Plaintiffs damages.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed June 23, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) inverse condemnation; (2) negligence (Gov’t Code, § 815.2(a)); (3) dangerous condition of public property (Gov’t Code, § 835); and (4) nuisance.

On July 28, 2022, City filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-10 for: (1) equitable indemnity; (2) contribution; and (3) declaratory relief.

On September 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel City’s further responses to Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”).

Plaintiffs move to compel City’s further responses to FROG Nos. 1.1, 15.1, and 17.1.

FROG 1.1 asks City to state the name, address, telephone number, and relationship to it of each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to the FROGs. City responded: “Responding Party and its attorneys of record, Bordin Semmer LLP, 6100 Center Drive, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90045; (323) 457-2110.” Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to know the identity of the persons involved in preparing the responses so that they can later be cross-examined. While City has identified itself and its attorneys of record in its response, City fails to provide any names of individuals and the relationship of each person who prepared or assisted in preparing the responses. A further response is warranted. The motion is granted as to FROG No. 1.1.

FROG No. 15.1 asks City to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in the pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which it bases the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the contact information of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all documents and other tangible things that support its denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the contact information of the person who has each document. City objected that the term “material” was vague, it invoked the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, and it objected that the FROG called for expert opinion and sought legal conclusions/reasoning/theories. Without waiving objections, City responded that a general denial was appropriate under CCP § 431.30 and that the FROG was premature as to affirmative defenses, as discovery was still ongoing. In its opposition, City states that it has no objection to providing a supplemental response now that discovery has progressed, and further information has been obtained. (See Opp. Separate Statement at p.2.) In light of City’s representations that it will provide further responses, the Court grants the motion as to FROG No. 15.1.

FROG No. 17.1 asks if City’s response to each RFA served with the FROGs is an unqualified admission and, if not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the RFA number; (b) state all facts upon which the response is based; (c) state the contact information of all persons with knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all documents that support the response and contact information of persons who has each document/thing. The FROG is directed to RFA Nos. 1-52. However, a copy of the RFAs is not provided with the moving, opposition, or reply papers, and the separate statements do not provide the text of the RFAs. The Court notes that Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel City’s further responses to the RFAs, which is currently scheduled for December 13, 2024. As such, the motion regarding FROG No. 17.1 is better determined following the Court’s ruling on the motion to compel further responses to the RFAs. Thus, the motion as to FROG No. 17.1 is continued to December 13, 2024.

Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $2,510 against City and its counsel of record.[1] City argues that sanctions are inappropriate since City acted with substantial justification with its objections/responses and that the requested sanctions are excessive. The Court will defer the issues of sanctions on this motion to compel further responses to the FROG to December 13, 2024 to be heard with the additional 4 motions to compel further responses set for that date.

Plaintiffs Meredith Paz and Victor Paz’s motion to compel Defendant City of Sierra Madre’s further responses to FROG is granted as to FROG Nos. 1.1 and 15.1. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of this order.

The motion to compel City’s further response to FROG No. 17.1 and the issue of sanctions is continued to December 13, 2024 to be heard concurrently with the motions to compel City’s further responses to Form Interrogatories (set two), Request for Admissions (set one), Request for Admissions (set two), and Request for Production of Documents (set one).

[1] Plaintiffs’ counsel Jeffrey A. Slott states that he spent 12 hours on meeting and conferring and preparing 5 total motions to compel further and separate statements (there is one motion on calendar on October 22, 2024 and 4 motions on calendar on December 13, 2024), and he anticipates spending 5.5 hours to prepare the reply briefs and to attend the hearings, for a total of 17.5 hours at $700/hour. (Slott Decl., ¶¶12-13.) He states that Plaintiffs will pay him over $12,250 in legal fees on these 5 motions, or $2,510 per motion for 5 total motions. (Id., ¶14.)