Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV32624, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV32624 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing Date: March
8, 2024
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Derek Keane
Responding Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Lafayette Apt. Associates, LP
(1) Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Form Interrogatory (Set Two) No. 15.1
The court has considered the moving
papers and opposition. No reply was received.
The
court GRANTS defendant/cross-complainant
Derek Keane’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory 15.1.
The court orders plaintiff/cross-defendant Lafayette Apt. Associates, LP to
serve further verified responses to Form Interrogatory 15.1 within 30 days of
the date of this ruling.
The court GRANTS defendant/cross-complainant
Derek Keane’s request for monetary sanctions for his motion to compel further
responses to Form Interrogatory 15.1 in the reduced amount of $800. The court
orders plaintiff/cross-defendant Lafayette Apt. Associates, LP and its counsel
of record, jointly and severally, to pay $500 to defendant Derek Keane, within
20 days of the date of this ruling.
The court DENIES
plaintiff/cross-defendant Lafayette Apt. Associates, LP’s request for monetary
sanctions against defendant/cross-complainant Derek Keane.
Background
Plaintiff Lafayette
Apt. Associates, L.P. (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Lafayette”) filed this
action on September 2, 2021. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended
Complaint (FAC) on December 8, 2023 against Kristine Rose J. Robles, Kristian
Apple J. Robles, Roselie Poblete, and Derek Keane, alleging the following
causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Account Stated; (3) Restitution
for Unjust Enrichment; (4) Quantum Meruit; and (5) Conversion. The FAC alleges
that the parties entered into a lease agreement on May 4, 2019 for a monthly
rend of $2,450 for the premises located at 401 S. Lafayette Park Place, Unit
206, Los Angeles, CA 90057. (FAC ¶ 13.) Defendants allegedly breached the
agreement on May 1, 2020 by failing to pay rent. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
Defendants allegedly owe to date a total of $39,802.47 in past due rent and
utilities.
On December 6,
2022, Dereke Keane filed a Cross-Complaint on December 6, 2022 against Lafayette
and his co-defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Retaliatory
Eviction; and (2) Contribution. The Cross-Complaint alleges Lafayette unlawfully
evicted Keane based on his inability to pay under the then-applicable Civil
Code § 1942.5(d). (Cross-Compl. ¶ 9.) Keane alleges the eviction was wrongful
since the three-day notice overstated the amount that was actually due. (Id.
at ¶ 10.) The eviction was also wrongful because the tenants were protected by
Civil Code § 1511, as their ability to pay rent starting in March 2020 was
attributable to governmental regulations. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Further, Keane
alleges the eviction violated the City and County Covid eviction moratoria, the
Tenant Relief Act of 2020 and the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. (Id. at
¶ 12.)
On April 4, 2023,
Keane filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories
(Set Two) No. 15.1. Lafayette filed its opposition on February 15, 2024. No
reply has been received.
Legal
Standard
Where responses to interrogatories have
been served but the requesting party believes that they are deficient because
the answers are evasive or incomplete, or, because an objection is without
merit, that party may move for an order compelling a further response. (CCP §
2030.300(a).) The motion must be made within 45 days after service of verified
responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. (CCP §
2030.300(c).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration
in compliance with CCP § 2016.040. (CCP § 2030.300(b).)
Discussion
Meet
and Confer
Keane
contends that he attempted to meet and confer with Lafayette’s counsel on March
16, 2023, March 27, 2023, and April 8, 2023, but Lafayette refused to engage
further when Keane clarified that Lafayette had waived their objections by
failing to provide timely responses. (See generally Keane Decl.) In opposition,
Lafayette argues that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith because
he repeated questions and refused to provide clarification as to “what part of ‘the
moratorium’ he was referring to in his discovery requests.” (Williamson Decl. ¶¶
6-8.) As stated below, the discovery request in question does not deal with a
moratorium. Therefore, the court declines to find that Keane did not act in
good faith when he attempted to meet and confer on this issue.
Merit
of the Motion
Here,
Keane propounded on Lafayette a Form Interrogatories (Set Two) on January 25,
2023, and Lafayette provided untimely responses on March 7, 2023. (See generally
Keane Decl.; Williamson Decl. ¶ 4.) However, Keane found Lafayette response to
Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 to be deficient because it included improper
objections, was evasive, and was incomplete. (Motion at pg. 2.)
Form Interrogatory
No. 15.1 seeks the following information:
Identify
each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in
your pleadings and for each: [¶] (a) state all facts upon which you base the
denial or special or affirmative defense; [¶] (b) state the names, ADDRESSES,
and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of
those facts; and [¶] (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that
support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name,
ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT
(See Separate Statement at pp. 1-2.) In response, Lafayette objected to the interrogatory
based on vagueness and that the information is protected by attorney-client
privilege or the work product doctrine. (Id. at pg. 2.) Additionally,
Lafayette provided the following response:
To
the extent the Propounding Party is referring to Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant
Lafayette Apartment Associates, L.P.'s Answer filed on January 19, 2023,
Lafayette responds as follows:
First
Affirmative Defense through Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defense
(a)
Defendant Derek Keane's claim for Retaliatory Eviction related to an Unlawful
Detainer Case# 20STUD03805 filed by Lafayette ("Unlawful Detainer
Case") is unsupported. The Unlawful Detainer Case is based on protected
activity because "the filing of unlawful detainer actions [is] protected
activity," and is an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free
speech.'" (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017)
2 Cal.5th 1057, 1063.
(b)
Trish Magnussen Portfolio Manager for Plaintiff c/o Airene Williamson, Esq.
Attorney for Responding Party, 320 N. Park Vista Street Anaheim, CA 92806.
(c)
All pleadings filed in the Unlawful Detainer Case# 20STUD03805.
(Ibid.)
While Lafayette claims that its objections are proper,
the court disagrees. Because Lafayette served responses to Form Interrogatories
(Set Two) on March 7, 2023, which was more than 30 days after the discovery request
had been propounded, Lafayette waived its ability to assert any objections, including
the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)
Thus, the objections that Lafayette asserted in response to Form Interrogatory No.
15.1 lack merit, which is a proper basis to grant the instant motion. (CCP §
2030.300(a)(3).)
Furthermore, the court finds that Lafayette’s substantive response
to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 is incomplete because it fails to identify each
denial of a material allegation as called for in the interrogatory.
The court therefore GRANTS Keane’s motion to compel
further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) No. 15.1. The court orders Lafayette
to serve further verified responses to Form Interrogatory 15.1 within 20 days
of the date of this ruling, without objections.
Request for Monetary Sanctions
Keane requests $1,000
in attorney’s fees as monetary sanctions against Lafayette and its counsel of
record for this motion. It is noted that Keane is a self-represented litigant,
but he attests that actually incurred $1,000 in attorney’s fees in connection
with this motion. In particular, Keane states in his declaration that he
retained Ken Carlson (Bar #93602) to research, draft and provide counseling in
connection with this motion as well as attempting to obtain the discovery
responses. (See generally Keane Decl.)
“If an attorney
is in fact retained by the pro se litigant and renders legal services assisting
in the lawsuit, the attorney need not be an attorney of record in order for the
reasonable fees of the attorney to be awarded to a prevailing party.” (Mix
v. Tumanjan Development Corp. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1324.)
While Keane is
entitled to recover monetary sanctions pursuant to Mix, the court finds
that the amount requested is unreasonable based on the lack of complexity with
the instant motion. Thus, the court finds reducing the recoverable amount to
$500 is reasonable.
The
court therefore GRANTS Keane’s request for monetary sanctions for his motion to
compel further responses to Form Interrogatory 15.1 in the reduced amount of $500.
The court orders Lafayette and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, to
pay $500 to Keane within 20 days of the date of this ruling.
It is so
ordered.
Dated:
March 8, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M. TREU
Judge of the
Superior Court