Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBUD00394, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBUD00394    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: S27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH DISTRICT

 

COAST MH, LLC,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

PATRICIA VAN DUYN, ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 22LBUD00394

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

 

Dept. S27

8:30 a.m.

September 6, 2022

 

Moving Party:               Defendant, Patricia Van Duyn

Opposing Party:           Plaintiff, Coast MH, LLC

Notice:                         OK

 

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Coast MH, LLC filed this action against Defendant, Patricia Van Duyn for unlawful detainer, alleging Defendant is in violation of an order citing Defendant for a non-permitted addition to her mobile home, which addition is too close to the property line for an adjoining parcel.  Plaintiff also contends Defendant is in violation of an 8/17/21 inspection, which revealed exposed romex wiring and an unfished porch and egress door with non-complying steps.  Plaintiff served Defendant with a sixty-day notice to quit, but Defendant has not vacated the premises or removed her mobile home. 

 

2.     8/04/22 Hearing on Motions to Compel Further Responses

The Court was originally scheduled to hear this motion on 8/04/22.  Prior to the hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling requiring the parties to meet and confer and to file a joint statement of items in dispute if they were unable to resolve outstanding issues. 

 

At the hearing, Defense Counsel stated the majority of issues had been resolved, but issues relating to production of documents remained unresolved between the parties.  The Court continued the hearing to 9/06/22 and ordered Counsel to meet and confer in an attempt to address the production-related issues.

 

3.     Joint Statement of Items in Dispute

The parties filed a joint statement of items in dispute.  In connection with all document categories, Plaintiff made similar contentions – she states that she is either looking for the documents and will produce them when found, she has produced them but will produce them again, or she will make a reasonable effort to locate and produce documents.  Notably, Plaintiff failed to include a response to RPD 25, but the Court assumes it was intended to be similar to the other responses.

 

Plaintiff cannot delay indefinitely in producing required documents.  The Court wishes to hear from Counsel, at the time of the hearing, concerning the status of locating the required documents and the timeline for production of same.  The Court notes that there is a TSC on calendar concurrently with the hearing on this motion, and that, as a UD case, it is entitled to trial preference.  The case has been pending for almost six months already.  The Court will consider remedies if it finds Plaintiff is not acting diligently to comply with her discovery obligations. 

 

4.     Trial Setting Conference

The parties are reminded that there is a TSC on calendar concurrently with the hearing on the discovery dispute.  The Court asks Counsel to make arrangements to appear remotely at the TSC and hearing on the motion.    

 

DATED:  September 6, 2022                  _____________________________________

                                                            MARK C. KIM                                                                                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court