Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

jesus rivas guillen, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

juliana rodriguez, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV01727

Hearing Date: October 11, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel further responses

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiffs Leticia Rivas and Jesus Rivas Guillen allege that they are separated but not divorced and do not speak or write English well. They allege that the property at issue is located at 11746 Stagg Street, North Hollywood, CA 91605. Plaintiffs allege that the subject property was purchased in 2012 and that their two daughters, Defendant Juliana Rodriguez and Nancy Barahona (deceased) assisted Plaintiffs with the purchase of the property, such that Plaintiffs would give their daughters the money for the down payment, the daughters would obtain a loan, and the property would be put in the names of the daughters; however, Plaintiffs would be the equitable owners of and live on the property. Plaintiffs allege that they gave Juliana Rodriguez and Nancy Barahona $243,662 on January 6, 2012 to obtain the loan, and that Juliana Rodriguez and Nancy Barahona took title to the subject property as joint tenants, as married women, as their sole and separate property by Grant Deed. Plaintiffs allege that Nancy Barahona died on August 24, 2021, such that Juliana Rodriguez is the only living record title holder—though they dispute that she holds any equitable title. Plaintiffs allege that Leticia Rivas has lived at the property since 2012 and that Jesus Rivas Guillen has lived at the property until 2 years ago when he moved to Texas; however, Plaintiffs both sent money to Juliana Rodriguez and Nancy Barahona to make all mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance for Plaintiffs since the property was obtained. Plaintiffs allege that Juliana Rodriguez, her husband Dimas Rodriguez, and their 3 children moved into the property in April 2020 and pay rent in the amount of $700/month.

Plaintiffs seek to quiet title to the subject property, finding them the equitable and actual owners of the property and that Juliana and Dimas Rodriguez have no right, title, or interest in the subject property.

The complaint, filed October 24, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2) declaratory relief; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) fraud; and (5) IIED.

B. Cross-Complaint

On July 18, 2024, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Juliana Rodriguez and Dimas Rodriguez filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”) against Cross-Defendants Jesus Rivas Guillen, Leticia Rivas, and all persons known and unknown claiming an interest to title for: (1) breach of oral contract; (2) intentional misrepresentation (fraud); (3) conversion; (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) intentional prospective economic advantage; (6) slander of title; (7) defamation per se; (8) IIED; (9) accounting; (10) quiet title; and (11) declaratory relief.

C. Motion on Calendar

On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff Leticia Rivas filed a motion to compel Defendant Juliana Rodriguez’s further responses to Requests for Production, set one (“RPD”).

On October 1, 2024, Juliana Rodriguez filed an opposition brief.

On October 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Leticia Rodriguez (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Juliana Rodriguez’s (hereinafter “Defendant”) further responses to RPD Nos. 1-31.

In the opposition, Defendant argues that the motion should be denied because Defendant believed that her attorney’s office had sent the RPD responses via email, but discovered later that the email was not sent and could not be located. Defendant argues that the failure to send response was through inadvertence and mistake. Defendant states that simultaneously with the opposition brief, defense counsel has provided the documents to Plaintiff’s counsel via creation of a new digital link and email for easy access to the documents. (Tehrani Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Exhibit A to the opposition brief includes an email attaching a link to the amended and supplemental response to the RPD. (Id., ¶5, Ex. A.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that the supplemental/amended responses state in large part that Defendant will be producing documents. (Reply at Ex. 5.)

According to Defendant’s amended responses (served September 30, 2024), Defendant states that she will provide responsive documents as to RPD Nos. 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-31. In light of her representations that further documents are forthcoming but have not yet been produced, the Court grants the motion as to RPD Nos. RPD Nos. 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-31.

RPD No. 4 seeks communications between Defendant and Jesus Rivas Guillen regarding the subject property. Defendant responded that she could not comply with the request because no such document existed despite a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. This is compliant with CCP § 2031.230. As such, the motion is denied as to RPD No. 4.

RPD No. 6 seeks communications between Defendant and Dimas Rodriguez regarding the subject property from 2019 to October 24, 2023. RPD No. 8 seeks communications between Defendant and Victor Manuel Castillo related to the purchase of the subject property in or around 2012. Defendant objected to these RPDs based on the marital communication privilege. Evidence Code, § 980 states: “Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, a spouse …, whether or not a party, has a privilege during the marital or domestic partnership relationship and afterwards to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a communication if he or she claims the privilege and the communication was made in confidence between him or her and the other spouse while they were spouses.” The Court notes that this was the same objection raised by Defendant in her initial responses to RPD Nos. 6 and 8. To the extent that Defendant is relying on privilege, she should substantiate her claim of privilege and produce a privilege log pursuant to CCP § 2031.240(c). The motion is granted as to RPD Nos. 6 and 8 so that Defendant may produce a privilege log of the documents claimed to be covered by the privilege.

Plaintiff seeks $4,868.90 in sanctions against Defendant and defense counsel (= [11.5 hours drafting the motion + 3.5 anticipated hours to consider the opposition and draft a reply brief + 1 anticipated hour to appear for the hearing, at $300/hour] + $68.90 in filing fees). (Digiuseppe Decl., ¶11.) The Court will award sanctions in favor of Plaintiff but will reduce the sanctions to a more reasonable sum of $2,068.90 and will impose the sanctions against defense counsel only. The failure to provide Defendant’s RPD responses to Plaintiff does not appear to have been as a result of any failure on the part of the client, but on defense counsel’s purported inadvertence and mistake. On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter regarding Defendant’s responses and pointed out that no responses were received with respect to the RPDs. (Mot. at Ex. 3.) Despite notifying defense counsel regarding the lack of responses, RPD responses were not provided, and Plaintiff filed this motion on August 6, 2024. It appears that defense counsel was prompted to provide the discovery responses as a result of the filing of this motion. Further, even though amended responses were provided, Defendant has still not produced documents.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Leticia Rivas’ motion to compel Defendant Juliana Rodriguez’s further responses to Requests for Production, set one is granted as to RPD Nos. 1-3 and 5-31. The motion is denied as to RPD No. 4. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s counsel of record is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,068.90 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: October 11, 2024 ___________________________

John J. Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court