Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 21LBCV00477, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21LBCV00477    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Efrain Medina Romo filed this action against Defendant, Fabiola Medina for quiet title, declaratory relief, and resulting trust.  Plaintiff alleges he purchased the property located at 400 E. 21^st Street, Unit E, Long Beach, CA 90806 in 1999 and provided all funds for the purchase.  He alleges Defendant, his daughter, took legal title to the home along with Plaintiff’s friend, Guillermo Mayorga, because Plaintiff did not have the credit rating necessary to purchase the property in his own name.  In 2000, Mayorga wanted to divest himself of the property, and transferred his interest to Defendant. 

Plaintiff alleges he has lived in the property at all times since the purchase, and has made all mortgage, property tax, and insurance payments, in addition to paying all utilities, maintenance, and repair costs on the property. 

Plaintiff alleges Defendant and her husband are threatening to evict him from the property, and are refusing to provide him with title to the property. 

Defendant has filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for quiet title, breach of contract, and related claims, alleging she owns the subject property, her father is a renter in the property, and her father is in breach of his obligation to pay rent on the property. 

2.     Motion to Compel Further Responses

a.     Meet and Confer

The parties met and conferred at length prior to the filing of this motion, and resolved numerous issues without the need for court intervention.  The Court appreciates the parties’ cooperation and participation in the meet and confer process.

b.     Separate Statement

Plaintiff correctly notes, in opposition to the motion, that Defendant failed to file the required separate statement with the moving papers.  Defendant concedes this defect in reply.  Defendant asks the Court to rule on the merits of the motion, both because the moving papers and accompanying meet and confer correspondence contains the required information, and also because a denial of the motion would result in re-filing of the moving papers.

The Court notes that, if it were to deny the motion on this procedural ground, Defendant would not be able to re-file the motion because the 45-day time limit would have passed.  Pages 5-8 of the moving memorandum of points and authorities contains all required information in support of the motion, and the Court will rule on the merits of the motion.  The Court asks Counsel to ensure compliance with all Rules of Court in the future in connection with this and other actions, as the Court may not overlook future similar defects.

c.     Two Motions in One

Plaintiff also argues Defendant has improperly combined two motions into one.  Specifically, Defendant moves to compel further responses to three special interrogatories and one production demand.  The Court will require Defendant to pay the required filing fees for a second motion at the time of the hearing. 

d.     Initial Note

Defendant filed moving papers on 7/25/22 and again on 8/03/22.  The moving papers on both dates have the same reservation number, and a quick review of the two sets of papers does not reveal any meaningful differences between them.  The Court has used the 8/03/22 set of papers in drafting this tentative ruling. 

e.     Analysis

SROG 1 asks, “Describe how you came to purchase the subject property.”  Plaintiff served a response, and then a supplemental response.  Defendant argues both responses are overly vague.  Plaintiff argues the SROG itself is overly vague.  The Court tends to agree.  Plaintiff should pose interrogatories that ask for specific information, as opposed to a long answer that could encompass infinite pieces of potential information. 

SROG #5 asks, “Describe the circumstances under which you came to have sufficient funds to purchase the subject property.”  Plaintiff responded that he got the money from his job painting boats.  Defendant argues this SROG seeks more information, such as the identity of his clients, where he carried out his services, etc.  Defendant did not ask for this information by way of the SROG.  The motion to compel a further response is denied.

SROG #11 asks, “Identify all mortgage payments you have made for the subject property.”  Plaintiff has itemized all payments he made between January of 2018 and August of 2021, but Defendant wants more information.  Specifically, Defendant wants money flow in the form of bank statements, receipts, withdrawal slips or earnings to substantiate the claim relating to mortgage payments dating back to 1999.  It seems this information would be better sought by way of a request for production of documents.  It is not clear what Defendant means by “identify” all mortgage payments.  Plaintiff has stated that he made the payments to Defendant, his daughter, every month from the inception of the loan.  If Defendant wants more information, more specific questions are necessary.

RPD #2 states, “Produce all documents that show you have a bank account.”  Defendant correctly notes that his banking records are subject to a right of privacy.  While specific records showing payments made by Plaintiff to Defendant are relevant, “all documents” showing he has a bank account are clearly not.  The motion to compel a further response is denied.

f.      Sanctions

Both parties seek sanctions in connection with the motion and opposition.  The Court finds Defendant brought the motion in good faith and with substantial justification, as the issues presented are not clear-cut and involve a fair amount of judicial discretion.  The Court also finds the parties met and conferred in good faith, and appreciates their willingness to narrow the issues prior to filing the motion regarding the remaining issues.  The Court therefore declines to impose sanctions in favor of or against either party. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.