Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

VIRGINIA ROCKWELL and DANIEL McCALLUM,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ROBERT M. LADESICH, as trustee for

the Ladesich Family Trust dated December

24, 1986, as restated and amended on July

13, 2007, JOSEPH CHARLES

LADESICH, as trustee for the Ladesich

Family Trust dated December 24, 1986, as

restated and amended on July 13, 2007,

JONATHAN MACHT, an individual

residing in California, COLDWELL

BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE

COMPANY, a California corporation, and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23STCV15353

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Action Filed: 6/30/23

1st Amended Complaint Filed: 7/26/23

2nd Amended Complaint Filed: 1/11/24

Trial Date: 8/25/25

Hearing date: September 20, 2024

Moving Party:

Responding Party:

Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

The motions are DENIED as moot.

Background

On January 11, 2024, Plaintiffs Virginia Rockwell (“Rockwell”) and Daniel McCallum (“McCallum”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Robert M. Ladesich, as trustee for the Ladesich Family Trust dated December 24, 1986, as restated and amended on July 13, 2007, Joseph Charles Ladesich, as trustee for the Ladesich Family Trust dated December 24, 1986, as restated and amended on July 13, 2007, Jonathan Macht (“Macht”), an individual residing in California, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company (“Coldwell Banker”), a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Breach of Duties; (4) Tortious Interference; (5) Fraudulent Intentional Misrepresentation; (6) Fraudulent Concealment; and (7) Negligent Misrepresentation.

The SAC alleges in pertinent parts as follows. The Ladesich Defendants granted Plaintiffs the exclusive right to purchase the real property located on 725 Via de la Paz, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 (“Property”) under a Lease Agreement. (SAC ¶¶11, 14.) About April 23, 2022, the Parties had reached mutually acceptable terms for the sale of the Property from the Ladesich Defendants to Plaintiffs for $3.8 million. (SAC ¶20.) The Ladesich Defendants entertained competing offers during the exclusivity period and attempted to seek $150,000.00 above asking price. (SAC ¶¶22-23.)

On August 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motions to Compel Ladesich Defendants to provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). On September 9, 2024, Ladesich Defendants filed their oppositions. On September 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their reply briefs.

Legal Standard

Where answers to requests for interrogatories have been served but 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

The motion must be made within 45 days after service of the verified response or any supplemental verified response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)

Finally, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)).¿

Meet and Confer

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)

Plaintiffs advance the declaration of their counsel of record, Victor R. Balladares, attesting to meet and confer made prior to the filing of the instant motions. Attorney Balladares sent a meet and confer letter on April 9, 2024. (Balladares Decl., ¶4, Ex. 3.) On June 13, 2024, Ladesich Defendants served supplemental responses. (Id. at ¶5, Ex. 4.) The Parties engaged in further meet and confer efforts on July 1-2, 2024, regarding Ladesich Defendants’ supplemental responses. (Id. at ¶6, Ex. 5.) Ladesich Defendants’ counsel, Ms. Guzman stated the supplemental responses were appropriate.

Thus, Plaintiffs’ sufficiently met and conferred in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.040.

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29, 30, and 31 from Ladesich Defendants. Also, Plaintiffs seek further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 12 from Defendant Robert Ladesich. These interrogatories seek identification of documents evidencing communications between Plaintiffs and Ladesich Defendants, identification of communications between Plaintiffs and Ladesich Defendants, description of how Ladesich Defendants came to the decision to sell the Property, identification of documents evidencing persons who have information regarding the decision to sell the Property for the $3.8 million, and identification of documents evidencing the new information that Ladesich Defendants relied on in increasing the purchase price by $150,000.00.

In opposition, Ladesich Defendants assert they have separately served a second set of further responses to the interrogatories at issue. In reply, Plaintiffs argue the amended supplemental responses are also deficient. Nevertheless, the present motions have been rendered moot as the responses at issue have been further supplemented. To the extent Plaintiffs contend the newly amended responses are deficient, they must file a new motion to compel further.

Therefore, the Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) are DENIED as moot.

It is so ordered.

Dated: September 20, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court