Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV13448, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV13448 Hearing Date: February 14, 2023 Dept: 55
CARDENAS
v. YADEGAR, 22STCV13448.
Hearing Date: 2/14/23, Dept. 55.
#4: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO DEFENDANTS.
Notice: Okay
No Opposition
MP:
Plaintiffs
RP:
Summary
On 4/21/22, plaintiffs, residing at 3439 Alginet
Drive, Los Angeles, filed a Complaint alleging that neighbors are causing
nuisances and privacy invasions, including maintaining hedges, walls, and other
vegetation, which are higher than allowed by the Municipal Code.
The causes of action are:
1. NUISANCE;
2. SPITE FENCE ABATEMENT
(CIVIL CODE §_841.4);
3. SPITE FENCE ABATEMENT
(LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE §41.31);
4. VIOLATION OF LOS
ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE §12.22.C.20;
5. VIOLATION OF LOS
ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE §12.07.01.C;
6. VIOLATION OF
MULHOLLAND SCENIC PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN; and
7. INVASION OF PRIVACY.
MP
Positions
Moving party requests an order compelling defendants’
further responses to form interrogatory number 15.1, and imposing $2,420 in
sanctions against defendants and/or counsel, on grounds including the
following:
·
In response to FROG 15.1, Defendants are
required to identify each of their nineteen affirmative defenses and, for each
defense, state all facts, identify all witnesses, and identify all documents,
that support each. Defendants have not done so.
·
Defendants’ responses provided only some
of the facts, and identified some witnesses and documents, regarding their
denials of allegations in the Complaint.
·
The responses did not identify any of
Defendants’ nineteen affirmative defenses, and did not state all facts,
witnesses, and documents to support each of the affirmative defenses.
·
Meeting and conferring was unsuccessful.
Tentative
Ruling
The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.
The failure to file a proper and timely opposition in
trial court creates a waiver of the issues on any appeal. Bell v. Am. Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226
Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1602; Cabrini
Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Haghverdian (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 683, 693. A judge in a civil case is not
"'obligated to seek out theories [a party] might have advanced, or to
articulate … that which … [a party] has left unspoken.'" Mesecher v.
As to Form Interrogatory 15.1, failure to serve
complete and straightforward responses stating substantive information,
witnesses, and documents contended to support affirmative defenses and claim
denials, may support terminating sanctions.
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163
Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1097, 1106.
Form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council
entail fundamentally routine discovery of witness contact information. Puerto v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.
App. 4th 1242, 1250. Contention interrogatories
involve the reflection of attorneys in formulating a response in a
sophisticated process of legal reasoning, sorting through evidence and
organizing it in terms of contentions a party is asserting. Rifkind v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 22 Cal.
App. 4th 1255, 1263. “A party's
contention may be the subject of discovery, but not the legal reasoning or
theory behind the contention.” Sav-On
Drugs v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 1, 5.
Analogously, admission requests and Judicial Council form interrogatory
No. 17.1 together require respondents to state all facts that support the
contentions, and any factually devoid or unsupportive responses may shift the
burden of proof for a motion for summary judgment. Union Bank v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 31 Cal.
App. 4th 573, 580.