Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00328, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22BBCV00328 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
diana
gomez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. esparanza
p. uc-barrera, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 22BBCV00328 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 (cont. from February 10,
2023) [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel further responses |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
This action
involves the real property located at 2309 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504.
Plaintiff Diana Gomez, Plaintiff William
Antonio Barrera Jr., and Defendant Sadie Gomez-Rosas are siblings. Defendant Esperanza P. UC-Barrera is their mother. Defendants The Barrera Family Trust Agreement
Dated 10/03/1996, The Barrera Living Trust Agreement, The Barrera 1996 Trust
Agreement, and Barrera Trust are living trusts.
Plaintiffs allege that on October 3,
1996, a living trust was created by their father under one of the
aforementioned “possible” names. On
March 14, 1997, Plaintiffs’ father passed away leaving the property under the
living trust in possession of its beneficiaries, which includes Plaintiffs. They allege that though they have an interest
in the property, Defendants have put the property up for sale without Plaintiffs’
consent. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have refused to provide a copy of
the living trust agreement to Plaintiffs.
Diana Gomez alleges that she moved into the subject premises in 2015 and
has acted as the onsite manager for over 20 years. On April 7, 2022, Defendants served Diana
Gomez with a 30-Day Notice to Vacate.
The second amended complaint (“SAC”),
filed January 17, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2)
promissory estoppel; (3) promissory fraud; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5)
constructive and/or resulting trust; (6) declaratory relief; and (7) IIED.
On July 6, 2022, the following defaults
were entered: The Barrera Family Trust Agreement Dated 10/03/1996, a living
trust; The Barrera Living Trust Agreement, a living trust; The Barrera 1996
Trust Agreement, a living trust; and Barrera Trust, a living trust.
B.
Motions on Calendar
On January 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed 3
motions to compel Defendant Sadia Gomez’s further responses to: (1) Special
Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”); (2) Request for Production, set one (“RPD”);
and (3) Request for Admission, set one (“RFA”).
On January 30, 2023, Defendant Sadia Gomez
filed opposition briefs to each of the motions.
On February 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed
reply briefs.
The matter came
for hearing on February 10, 2023. The Court
continued the motions to April 14, 2023.
The Court stated: “The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding
the outstanding discovery. If the parties
are unable to informally resolve this matter and do not take the motions off-calendar,
then Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve amended separate statements to
the SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs by the end of the business day on March 17, 2023. These separate statements should provide an
update to the Court regarding the meet and confer efforts following this order
and what discovery remains outstanding. Plaintiffs
are also ordered to include copies of Defendant’s responses/objections to the discovery
with the separate statements. Defendant
Sadia Gomez is ordered to file and serve opposing separate statements by the
end of the business day on March 30, 2023.
No further briefing will be permitted.”
On March 17, 2023,
Plaintiffs filed amended separate statements.
On March 30, 2023,
Sadia Gomez filed responsive separate statements. In her responsive separate
statement, Sadia Gomez states that Plaintiff made no effort to meet and confer
prior to filing his amended separate statements.
DISCUSSION
A.
SROG
Plaintiffs move to compel Sadia Gomez’s
further responses to SROG Nos. 1-31.
In opposition, Sadia Gomez argues that the
motion was filed in bad faith and without completing the meet and confer
process. Sadia Gomez argues that the discovery
and meet and confer efforts improperly relied on the 1996 version of the Trust
when the 1996 Trust has since been superseded by the 2016 Restatement of the
1996 Trust as well as a 2022 Amendment. Defense
counsel states that he attempted to continue meet and confer efforts, but
Plaintiff went forward and filed this motion without completing informal
efforts to resolve this matter. (See Opp., Ex. B.) Thus, Sadia Gomez requests that the motion be
denied and Plaintiff be ordered to meet and confer about the discovery.
The Court has reviewed the moving papers
and the separate statement. The Court notes
that the memorandum of points and authorities broadly addresses the legal
standard for a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and Plaintiffs’
general arguments that Sadia Gomez’s responses were inadequate and lacking. In the separate statement, Sadia Gomez argues
that there is good cause for discovery because Plaintiffs have an interest in
the subject premises, but Defendants continue to proceed with the sale of the
property. Plaintiffs also argue
generally that all of Sadia Gomez’s objections are invalid. The separate statement then lists the SROG
and Sadia Gomez’s response, but Plaintiffs do not specifically address each
SROG and Defendants’ response thereto and why a further response is necessary.
Due to the defects in Plaintiff’s separate
statement, the Court continued the hearing on the motion so that Plaintiff
could file conforming separate statements.
It also appeared that Sadia Gomez was willing to continue meet and
confer efforts to informally resolve the discovery dispute. However, according to Sadia Gomez in her
amended separate statement papers, Plaintiff made no effort to engage in meet
and confer efforts after the Court’s order on February 10, 2023.
As it does not appear that the
parties have informally resolved their discovery dispute, the Court will consider
the merits of the motion. However, the
failure to adequately meet and confer may affect the Court’s ruling on
sanctions.
SROG No. 1 asks Sadia Gomez
to identify the person(s) responding to the SROGs on her behalf and identify
each person who has provided information in connection with the SROGs. Sadia Gomez objected to no. 1 on the ground
that it was compound and the attorney client privilege, but responded “Matthew
R. Stidham, Esq. of The Legacy Lawyers, P.C., 18872 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612.” SROG No. 2 asks
Sadia Gomez to identify any person or entity not already named as a party to
the lawsuit that she contends was connected to, contributed to, assisted in, or
was a part of completing, negotiating, or finalizing the trust. Sadia Gomez objected that no. 2 was overbroad
and vague, but responded by identifying Mr. Stidham. Sadia Gomez’s responses adequately address
SROG Nos. 1 and 2. As such, the motion
is denied as to SROG Nos. 1 and 2 and a further response will not be ordered.
SROG Nos. 3-11
have similar issues:
Plaintiffs seek a further response,
arguing that the term “Trust” is not vague as it refers to all of iterations of
the trust (as defined in the SROGs). Sadia
Gomez’s responses are only partially responsive as they only pertain to the
2016 Trust. The SROGs seek information
about each version of the trust, which is compound in nature. Although compound in nature, the Court will
allow the SROGs to go forward to prevent any further delay in this action (though
this will affect whether the Court will award sanctions to Plaintiffs). Thus, Sadia Gomez should provide further
responses to the SROGs to answer each SROG fully. Further, Sadia Gomez’s responses should
conform to CCP § 2030.220, which states:
(a) Each answer in a response to
interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information
reasonably available to the responding party permits.
(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered
completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
(c) If the responding party does not have
personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party
shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the
information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where
the information is equally available to the propounding party.
(CCP
§ 2030.220.) The motion is granted as to
SROG Nos. 3-11 so that Sadia Gomez may provide responses as to the prior
versions of the trust.
SROG No. 12 asks Sadia Gomez if
she attempted to sell the subject premises.
She objected that the SROG was overbroad and vague, raised the work
product doctrine, and responded “yes.” Although Sadia Gomez raised objections,
she ultimately responded in the affirmative that she did attempt to sell the
subject premises. As such, a further
response is not warranted. The motion is
denied as to SROG No. 12.
SROG No. 13 asks Sadia Gomez
to identify all documents, photos, or communications evidencing Sadia Gomez or
anyone in her knowledge attempting to sell the subject premises. SROG No. 14 asks Sadia Gomez to
identify all documents, photos, or communications evidencing Sadia Gomez receiving
verification of all beneficiaries of the Trust on the sale of the subject
premises. Sadia Gomez objected on
various grounds and responded that after a diligent search, she did not have any
documents in her possession. However,
the SROGs do not ask for the production of documents, but only the identification
of documents, photos, and communications regarding the sale of the subject property. As such, a further response should be provided
as to SROG Nos. 13-14.
SROG Nos. 15-16 ask Sadia Gomez
to identify the most recent changes and all other changes to the Trust she is
aware of, as well as who made the edits, when they were finalized, and why the
Trust was revised. SROG No. 17
asks Sadia Gomez to state all facts which support how she was able or unable to
obtain verification from all beneficiaries listed on the Trust to sell the
subject premises. Sadia Gomez objected
that the SROGs were vague and compound, but responded by identifying the May 31,
2016 Trust. Sadia Gomez’s response identifies
what she believes is the most recent change to the Trust as the May 31, 2016
version of the Trust, but fails to respond to the remainder of the SROGs as
asked (i.e., who made the edits, when the were finalized, why the Trust was
revised, etc.). As such, the motion to
SROG Nos. 15-17 is granted.
With respect to SROG No. 18-20 and 22
asks Sadia Gomez if she: (18) tried to defraud Plaintiffs and (19, 20, and 22) removed
their names from the Trust. SROG No.
21 asks if someone she knew removed any names from the Trust. SROG Nos. 23-25 asks if Sadia Gomez
received Plaintiffs’ consent before removing their names from the Trust. Sadia Gomez objected to Nos. 18, 21, and 23-25
on the ground that the SROGs were vague and ambiguous. She objected to Nos. 19, 20, and 22 on the
ground that the SROGS were vague and responded “No.” Plaintiffs seek a further
response, arguing that the terms of the trust are clearly defined in their request
and Sadia Gomez is in possession of the trust documents.
With respect to no. 18, Plaintiff’s reasoning
for seeking a further response (i.e., that “Trust” was properly defined) does
not appear to actually correspond to the SROG as asked (i.e., whether Sadia
Gomez tried to defraud Plaintiff, generally).
The Court will sustain her objections to the SROG. The motion is denied as to SROG No. 18.
Further, with respect to SROG Nos. 19, 20,
and 22, Sadia Gomez responded “no” to the SROGs regarding whether she removed Plaintiffs
from the Trust. As such, a further response will not be compelled as to SROG
Nos. 19, 20, and 22.
With respect to nos. 21 and 23-25, the
Court recognizes Sadia Gomez’s objection that the SROGs are compound in
nature. However, as stated above, the
Court will allow the SROGs to proceed, but will consider these objections when
ruling on sanctions. The motion is
granted as to SROG Nos. 21 and 23-25.
SROG No. 26 asks Sadia Gomez
to identify documents that evidence all attempts to obtain consent from all
beneficiaries to sell the subject premises.
Sadia Gomez objected that the SROG was vague as to the Trust and assumed
facts not in evidence, but identified the May 31, 2016 Trust. While the SROG may assume certain facts, if
no such documents exist, Sadia Gomez should state that no documents can be
identified as no documents exist. As
such, a further response to SROG No. 26 is warranted.
SROG Nos. 27 and 28 asks Sadia Gomez
if Diana Gomez and William Antonio Barrera Jr. denied consent to sell the
subject premises. She responded to SROG
Nos. 27 and 28 by stating that she lacked personal knowledge to respond to the
SROGs. SROG No. 29 asks Sadia
Gomez if she received her own consent to sell the subject premises. She objected to SROG No. 29 on the basis that
it was overbroad, unintelligible, vague, and ambiguous. Nevertheless, the Court will order a further
response. Pursuant to CCP § 2030.220(c),
“If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to
respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a
reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other
natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally
available to the propounding party.” As
such, the motion is granted as to SROG Nos. 27 and 28. The Court will also grant the motion as to
SROG No. 29.
SROG Nos. 30 and 31 ask Sadia
Gomez if she removed Diana Gomez and William Antonio Barrera Jr. from the Trust
prior to attempting to gain their consent to sell the subject premises. Sadia Gomez objected that the SROGs were
vague and compound and she identified the May 31, 2016 Trust. The Court will order further responses be
provided to these SROGs as Sadia Gomez’s responses do not appear to address the
questions asked in the SROGs. Thus, the
motion is granted as to SROG Nos. 30 and 31.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Sadia Gomez’s
further responses to the SROG is denied as to SROG Nos. 1-2, 12, 18-20, and 22,
and granted as to SROG Nos. 3-11, 13-17, 21, and 23-31.
Plaintiffs request $3,300 in sanctions
against Sadia Gomez for bringing this motion.
The Court declines to award sanctions.
Sanctions are appropriate against a party who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes a motion to compel further. (CCP
§ 2030.300(d).) While the Court granted a
most of the motion regarding the SROGs, the Court did so in spite of the fact
that Plaintiffs’ SROG requests were improperly formed and compound in
nature. The Court also notes, due to the
confusing nature of the first separate statement filed by Plaintiff (which failed
to accurately provide the Court and the parties with Sadia Gomez’s discovery
responses/objections), the Court had to continue the hearing on this motion and
ordered the parties to engage in meet and confer efforts. It also appears that Plaintiff did not engage
in such meet and confer efforts prior to filing the amended separate
statement. Counsel Areg A. Sarkissian
seeks $3,240 for preparing the motion (= $405/hour x 8 hours) and $60 in filing
fees, but the minimal effort put into the moving papers does not justify awarding
sanctions. For the most part, the most
part, the moving papers and the amended separate statement are cursory in their
request for further responses to SROG Nos. 1-31. The request for sanctions is denied.
Sadia Gomez seeks sanctions against
Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,500.
However, this request for sanctions is not supported by a declaration to
account for how sanctions were calculated or incurred. Further, while Plaintiffs’ papers were problematic,
Sadia Gomez’s responses were in part evasive or incomplete in nature. As such, neither party will be awarded
sanctions on this motion.
B.
RPD
Plaintiffs move to compel Sadia Gomez’s
further responses to RPD Nos. 1-24.
RPD No. 1 seeks all documents
that mention, refer to, or relate to the Trust regarding the property at 2309
N. Naomi St. RPD No. 18 asks for
all documents that mention, refer to, relate to, or evidence any and all drafts
and versions of the Trust. Sadia Gomez objected that the term “Trust” was
vague, but responded by identifying the 2016 Trust, the 1996 Trust was restated
in its entirety by the 2016 Restatement of Trust, and she does not possess the
original/copy of the 1996 Trust. She responded
that the 1996 Trust is not part of the “terms of trust” pursuant to Probate
Code, § 16060.5 and even if it were, it would not be produced as a required
disclosure pursuant to Probate Code, § 16061.7.
While the 2016 Trust terms are relevant and responsive to RPD No. 1, Sadia
Gomez’s response that she will not and cannot produce the 1996 Trust terms is evasive
and incomplete. Section 16061.7 is
regarding the notification by a trustee following certain events and identifies
who the notification must be provided to.
However, this section, at most, states who should receive notice of
certain events occurring in relation to the trust; this section does not prevent
a party from seeking prior versions of the trust through discovery. Further, Sadia Gomez states that she does not
have possession of the 1996 Trust terms.
However, her response does not fully conform with CCP § 2031.230, which states:
“A representation of inability to comply with the
particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall
affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an
effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether
the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never
existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never
been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding
party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person
or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or
control of that item or category of item.”
The motion is granted as to RPD Nos.
1 and 18.
RPD Nos. 2-9 and 11
seek all documents that mention, refer to, or relate to all oral/written
communication: (2) from Sadia
Gomez to either her or anyone she understood to be employed by her related to
the Trust; (3) to Plaintiff regarding or pertaining to any notices to sell or
surrender the residence indicated by the terms of the Trust; (4)-(5) pertaining
to Sadia Gomez’s ownership of residence between Sadia Gomez and Plaintiff; (6) by
Sadia Gomez or any agents/persons under her control/direction regarding any
bank statements, receipts, expenses, etc. pertaining to the residence, Trust,
and/or her purpose of selling the residence; (7) regarding when Sadia Gomez or
any agent/persons under her control/direction came into full possession of the residence;
(8) pertaining to Sadia Gomez denying Plaintiff from gaining or obtaining possession
of the residence according to the Trust terms; (9) regarding any requests for full
ownership of property by Plaintiff to Sadia Gomez; and (11) including any known
evidence that Sadia Gomez has full ownership of the subject premises. RPD No. 10 asks for all documents relating
to any payments paid out to Plaintiff in regards to the Trust terms.
Sadia Gomez objected that the SROGs were
vague as to the “Trust,” but responded by identifying the 2016 Trust. Sadia
Gomez responded that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, she is unable
to comply because the requested items are not in her possession. At most, Plaintiffs argue in their separate statement
that the “interrogatory” is not vague because the term “Trust” is defined to
include all versions of the trust. Plaintiffs’
reasoning for why a further response is necessary is lacking. However, the Court will order a further
response as Sadia Gomez’s response does not fully comply with CCP § 2031.230’s
requirement to set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known
or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item
or category of item. (However, the Court
would be inclined to deny awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiffs for
bringing a motion based on inadequate arguments in their moving and amended
papers.) The motion is granted as to RPD
Nos. 2-11.
RPD No. 12 asks Sadia Gomez
for all documents evidencing any covenants between her and Plaintiff concerning
the Trust. Sadia Gomez objected on the grounds
stated above, but responded she will provide the 2016 Trust Restatement. Plaintiffs seek a further response arguing
that the term “Trust” has been amply defined.
It is unclear if Sadia Gomez has limited her response solely to the 2016
Trust or with respect to all versions of the Trust. If limited solely to the 2016 Trust, then a
further response is warranted. The
motion is granted as to RPD No. 12.
RPD Nos. 13-14 ask Sadia Gomez
for documents evidencing that she and Plaintiff breached the Trust. Sadia Gomez objected that the SROGs were
vague as to the term “Trust” and “breach” and assumed facts not in
evidence. Sadia Gomez also responded
that no documents exist after making a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. It is unclear upon what terms or basis
Plaintiffs are asking Sadia Gomez to produce documents evidencing a breach of
the Trust. As pointed out by Sadia Gomez,
it is unclear what duties she or Plaintiff owed to the Trust, or how Plaintiff owes
a duty as a non-beneficiary of the 2016 Trust.
The motion is denied as to RPD nos. 13-14.
The Court notes that RPD Nos. 15-17 were
not included in Plaintiffs’ amended separate statement. (RPD Nos. 15-17 asked for all documents
identified in Sadia Gomez’s FROG, SROG, and RFA responses, to which Sadia Gomez
responded she would provide the documents.)
Thus, the motion is denied as to RPD Nos. 15-17.
RPD Nos. 19-20 ask for all documents
that mention, refer to, or relate to Diana Gomez and William Antonio Barrera
Jr. being listed as beneficiaries on the Trust. Sadia Gomez objected that the term “Trust” was
vague, but responded by identifying the 2016 Trust and stating she is unable to
comply because the documents are not within her possession. She also states that Diana Gomez was disinherited
and that the 2016 Trust Restatement was already produced to William Antonio
Barrera Jr. (as the only responsive document to this request). Again, Sadia Gomez should respond to the RPDs
in compliance with CCP § 2031.230’s full requirements. Further, to the extent that she has only
responded to the RPDs in relation to the 2016 Trust, a further response will be
ordered for any prior versions of the Trust.
If Sadia Gomez lacks such documents, then her response should state as
such in full compliance with CCP § 2031.230.
The motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 19-20.
RPD Nos. 21-22 ask for all documents
that mention, refer to, or relate to Sadia Gomez removing Diana Gomez and
William Antonio Barrera Jr. from the Trust. Sadia Gomez objected that the RPDs assume
facts no in evidence. Sadia Gomez responded
that no documents exist after making a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. Although
the RPDs assume facts that Sadia Gomez removed Plaintiffs from the Trust, she
should at least make efforts to respond to the RPDs to the extent that she
can. It appears that she does not have
any documents in her possession, but her response should fully comply with CCP §
2031.230. As such, the motion is granted
as to RPD Nos. 21-22.
RPD Nos. 23-24 ask for all
documents that mention, refer to, or relate to any and all ways the Trust was
changed after the passing of the trustor and being left unchanged since the passing
of the trustor. Sadia Gomez objected that the RPDs are vague as to the Trust. Sadia Gomez responded that no documents exist
after making a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. For the same reasons discussed above, the
motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 23-24, as they should comply with the full
requirement of CCP § 2031.230.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Sadia Gomez’s
further responses to the RPD is granted as to RPD Nos. 1-12 and 18-24, and denied
as to RPD Nos. 13-17.
Both parties requested sanctions on this
motion. The requests are denied.
C.
RFA
Plaintiffs move to
compel Sadia Gomez’s further responses to RFA Nos. 3-24 and 27-30.
Plaintiffs argue that a further response
is warranted because the Trust refers to all versions of the trust, which
Plaintiffs expressly defined. The RFAs as
asked are compound. However, as
discussed above regarding the motion to compel further responses to the SROGs,
the Court will allow the RFAs to go forward, but will decline to award
sanctions to Plaintiffs for the non-conforming RFAs. As such, the motion to compel further responses to the RFA is granted.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant Sadia
Gomez’s further responses to the SROG is denied as to SROG Nos. 1-2, 12, 18-20,
and 22, and granted as to SROG Nos. 3-11, 13-17, 21, and 23-31.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant Sadia
Gomez’s further responses to the RPDs is granted as to RPD Nos. 1-12 and 18-24,
and denied as to RPD Nos. 13-17.
Plaintiffs’
motion to compel Defendant Sadia Gomez’s further responses to the RFAs is granted.
Defendant is ordered to provide further
responses within 20 days of notice of this order.
No sanctions will
be awarded in connection with these motions. In addition, the Court has allowed
the Plaintiffs to define the Trust at issue broadly in a way that arguably make
the requests compound. As such, Plaintiffs may not issue repetitive requests that
define the terms narrowly.
Plaintiffs shall
provide notice of this order.