Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 23STCV08990, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 23STCV08990    Hearing Date: September 11, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                    INTRODUCTION

This action arises from the alleged breach of a lease agreement concerning real property including the land, improvements, and fixtures therein located at 11934-11940 Willowbrook Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90059, which consists of four units (the “Premises”).

On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff Willowbrook Home LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants David Wohlman (“Wohlman), Felicia Edelman (“Edelman”) (collectively “Defendants”), and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Past Due Rent Owed; (2) Breach of Lease for Failure to Pay Rent When Due; (3) Breach of Lease for Failure to Allow Inspection of and Repair to Premises; (4) Breach of Lease for Failure to Repair and Maintain Premises; (5) Breach of Lease for Pest Infestation; (6) Conversion; (7) Trespass; (8) Waste; and (9) Negligence.

On July 31, 2023, Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, Susan Carpenter (“Carpenter”), Craig Caldwell (“Caldwell”), and ROES 1 to 10, inclusive, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Constructive Eviction; (2) Failure to Comply with Civ. Code § 1950.5; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Tortious Interference with Contractual Relationship; and (6) Harassment/Intentional Retaliation.

On August 4, 2023, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Caldwell filed respective Answers to the Cross-Complaint.

On August 29, 2023, Cross-Defendant Carpenter filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On January 30, 2024, the court held an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) and the court noted that the issues had not been resolved and ordered counsel to meet and confer. (01/30/24 Minute Order.) If the objections remained, the parties could request another IDC or file a motion to compel. (01/30/24 Minute Order.)

On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Ruling indicating that, at the IDC, the court and parties agreed that Defendants would respond to Set One of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents by February 20, 2024. (02/06/24 Notice of Ruling.)

On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served these Motions to Compel Defendants Wohlman and Edelman’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and for monetary sanctions against Wohlman and Edelman, and their counsel of record, Marc Lafer.[1]

Plaintiff’s motions are unopposed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

II.                 LEGAL STANDARD

In California, discovery statutes “must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) Consequently, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (Ibid.)

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010(a).) Where a party fails to timely respond to demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling “[t]he 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b) provides that “[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

          “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).) A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

III.              DISCUSSION

Plaintiff served counsel for Defendants Wohlman and Edelman with Set One of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on August 28, 2023. (Howard Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. A.) After defense counsel stated it had no record of being served with discovery, Plaintiff’s counsel re-sent the discovery to defense counsel. (Howard Decl., ¶ 12; Exh. G.) Defendant Wohlman has failed to provide any responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents. (Howard Decl., ¶ 17(b).) Defendants Wohlman and Edelman have not complied with the Notice of Ruling as to the IDC, which requires Defendant Wohlman and Edelman to provide responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents by February 20, 2024. (Howard Decl., ¶ 17(a)-(b).)

Ms. Howard declares that her hourly rate is $300.00 per hour and that she anticipates spending seven (7) hours total preparing the motion and appearing at the hearing thereon. (Howard Decl., ¶ 19(b).) A $60.00 filing fee was incurred for the motion. (Howard Decl., ¶ 19(a).) Ms. Howard states that she estimates spending an additional four (4) hours preparing a reply brief and preparing for oral argument and attending the hearing. (Howard Decl., ¶ 19(c).) Thus, she estimates additional fees of $1,200.00 will be incurred. (Howard Decl., ¶ 19(c).) Plaintiff requests total monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,360.00. (Howard Decl., ¶ 19.)

The Court finds that Defendants Wohlman and Edelman have failed to respond to discovery and compelling their responses are appropriate.

As to monetary sanctions, the Court finds that the total hours should be reduced given the relative brevity of the motion, its straightforward nature, and the lack of an opposition brief.

The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions and AWARDS Plaintiff reasonable monetary sanctions against each defendant in the amount of $660.00 (which represents 2.0 hours of work on the motion at the rate of $300.00 per hour plus the $60.00 filing fee) for a total award of $1,320.  Monetary sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff by Defendants and their counsel of record, Marc Lafer, jointly and severally, within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

IV.             CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel. The Court ORDERS Defendants Wohlman and Edelman to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to Set One of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $660.00 are to be paid to Plaintiff by Defendant Wohlman and his counsel of record, Marc Lafer, jointly and severally, within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.  Monetary sanctions in the amount of $660.00 are to be paid to Plaintiff by Defendant Edelman and her counsel of record, Marc Lafer, jointly and severally, within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

            Dated this 11th day of September 2024