Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 21CHCV00170 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00170, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCV00170 Hearing Date: August 5, 2022 Dept: F47

Motions as to Defendant housingassistant.org will be posted on 08/05/2022 after check-ins, before the matter is called for hearing.

Dept. F47

Date: 8/5/22

Case #21CHCV00170

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Form Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 2/17/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gloria Brown

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant David Garza

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant David Garza to respond to Plaintiff Gloria Brown’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, without objection, within 10 days. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and his attorney of record in the amount of $2,812.50.

RULING: The request to compel responses without objections is granted. Responses are due within 30 days. Sanctions are denied.

This action arises out of Plaintiff Gloria Brown’s (Plaintiff) claim that defendants, including Defendant David Garza (Garza), schemed to solicit and victimize her so that they could profit from the eventual loss of Plaintiff’s home.

On 5/13/21, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on Garza by electronic mail at seg@rglawyers.com. (Spencer Decl., Ex.A, Form Interrogatories, Proof of Service). The email address of record for Garza’s attorney at the time, Solomon Gresen, is/was jh@rglawyers.com. (See eCourt, “Parties”). The instant motion, which requests an order compelling Defendant David Garza to respond to Plaintiff Gloria Brown’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, without objection, within 10 days and requests sanctions against Defendant and his attorney of record in the amount of $2,812.50, was also served on seg@rglawyers.com. (See Motion, Proof of Service).

The email address for attorney Gresen in email exchanges between counsel appears to be seg@rglawyers.com. (See Spencer Decl., Ex.C). However, attorney Gresen’s 6/14/21 email indicates that he was the only person at his firm who received service of the discovery implying that service should also have been made on others (i.e., the email address of record). (See Spencer Decl., Ex.B). Attorney Gresen’s 7/7/21 email also indicates he was having issues with receiving emails and he requested that his paralegal be copied at zs@rglawyers.com on all future correspondence. (See Spencer Decl., Ex.C). Despite the foregoing, the instant motion was served on attorney Gresen only at seg@rglawyers.com, which as noted above, is/was not the email address of record for attorney Gresen. The day after the instant motion was filed and served a substitution of attorney form was filed substituting in Steffanie Stelnick in place of Solomon Gresen as Garza’s attorney. (See Substitution of Attorney filed 2/18/22).

On 8/3/22, Garza’s current counsel filed a declaration in response to the motion. In the declaration, attorney Stelnick states that despite requests, Garza’s former attorney failed to forward the discovery to her when she substituted in as counsel for Garza. (Stelnick Decl.). Attorney Stelnick goes to state that Plaintiff’s counsel was uncooperative in providing the discovery in a reasonable manner upon her request. Id. Further, attorney Stelnick states that Garza’s son was recently murdered so she has been unable work with him to prepare responses. Id. However, she states that she has every intention of promptly providing complete responses. Id.

Based on the foregoing, the request to compel responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Set 1, is granted as Defendant David Garza failed to serve timely responses. CCP 2030.290(a), (b). Responses are due within 30 days.

The request for sanctions is denied.

CCP 2023.040 provides:

A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.

Dept. F47

Date: 8/5/22

Case #21CHCV00170

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 2/17/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gloria Brown

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant David Garza

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant David Garza to serve written responses, without objection, and produce documents responsive to Plaintiff Gloria Brown’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, within 10 days. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and/or his attorney of record in the amount of $3,750.00.

RULING: The request to compel responses without objections and for the production of responsive documents is granted. Responses and production are due within 30 days. Sanctions are denied.

On 5/7/21, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on Garza by electronic mail at seg@rglawyers.com. (Spencer Decl., Ex.A, Requests for Production of Documents, Proof of Service). The email address of record for Garza’s attorney at the time, Solomon Gresen, is/was jh@rglawyers.com. (See eCourt, “Parties”). The instant motion, which requests an order compelling Defendant David Garza to serve written responses, without objection, and produce documents responsive to Plaintiff Gloria Brown’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, within 10 days and requests sanctions against Defendant and/or his attorney of record in the amount of $3,750.00, was also served on seg@rglawyers.com. (See Motion, Proof of Service).

Based on the foregoing, the request to compel written responses without objections and the production of responsive documents to Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, is granted as Defendant David Garza failed to serve timely responses. CCP 2031.300(a), (b). Responses and production are due within 30 days.

The request for sanctions is denied.

CCP 2023.040 provides:

Dept. F47

Date: 8/5/22

Case #21CHCV00170

MOTION TO DEEM
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

Motion filed on 2/17/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gloria Brown

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant housingassistant.org

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order deeming
Requests for Admissions, Set 1, served on Defendant housingassistant.com by
Plaintiff Gloria Brown admitted.
Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and his
attorney of record in the amount of $3,437.50.

RULING:

This action arises out of Plaintiff Gloria Brown’s
(Plaintiff) claim that defendants, including Defendant housingassistant.org,
schemed to solicit and victimize her so that they could profit from the
eventual loss of Plaintiff’s home.

On 5/13/21, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on
Defendant housingassistant.org by electronic mail at seg@rglawyers.com. (Spencer Decl., Ex.A, RFAs, pp.5-6). The email address of record for Defendant
housingassistant.org’s attorney, Solomon Gresen, is jh@rglawyers.com. (See eCourt, “Parties”). The instant motion, which requests an order deeming
Requests for Admissions, Set 1, served on Defendant housingassistant.com by
Plaintiff Gloria Brown admitted and the imposition of sanctions against
Defendant and his attorney of record in the amount of $3,437.50, was also served
on seg@rglawyers.com. (See Motion Proof of Service).

The email address for attorney Gresen in email exchanges
between counsel appears to be seg@rglawyers.com. (See Spencer Decl., Ex.C). However, attorney Gresen’s 6/14/21 email
indicates that he was the only person at his firm who received service of the
discovery implying that service should also have been made on others (i.e., the
email address of record). (See
Spencer Decl., Ex.B). Attorney Gresen’s
7/7/21 email also indicates he was having issues with receiving emails and he
requested that his paralegal be copied at zs@rglawyers.com
on all future correspondence. (See
Spencer Decl., Ex.C). Despite the
foregoing, the instant motion and the reply were served on attorney Gresen only
at seg@rglawyers.com, which as noted
above, is not the email address of record for attorney Gresen. No response/opposition to the motion has been
filed.

If counsel for Defendant housingassistant.org appears at
the hearing and concedes receipt of the underlying discovery and the instant
motion, the request to deem Requests for Admissions, Set 1, admitted will be
granted as Defendant housing assistant.org failed to serve responses
thereto. CCP 2033.280(a)-(c). In such case, Defendant
housingassistant.com’s counsel must also clarify its email address of record
for future service.

The request for sanctions will be denied. While sanctions
are usually mandatory under such circumstances, Plaintiff has failed to
adequately identify against whom the sanctions are sought. See CCP 2033.280(b)-(c).

CCP 2023.040 provides:

A request for a sanction shall, in
the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom
the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of
motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and
accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any
monetary sanction sought.

Here, in the caption of the notice of motion, Plaintiff
indicates that sanctions are sought against “Defendant and its counsel of
record” without identifying a specific defendant or attorney. (See Motion, p.1:18-20). In the body of the notice, Plaintiff requests
sanctions “against Defendant and his attorney of record.” (emphasis
added) (See Notice of Motion, p.2:5-6).
The responding party to the discovery is an entity. Again, no specific attorney is
identified. Even if the party and/or
attorney against whom sanctions are sought had been properly identified, the
Court finds that the $3,437.50 requested for the motion to be excessive.

If Defendant housingassistant.org does not appear at the
hearing and/or claims not to have received the underlying discovery and/or motion,
the hearing will be placed off calendar due to defective service. The underlying discovery (and a subsequent
motion, if necessary) will then have to be re-served on either the physical or
electronic mail address of record for Defendant housingassistant.org’s counsel.

Dept. F47

Date: 8/5/22

Case #21CHCV00170

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Form
Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 2/17/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gloria Brown

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant housingassistant.org

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order
compelling
Defendant housingassistant.com to respond to Plaintiff Gloria Brown’s Form
Interrogatories, Set 1, without objection, within 10 days. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions
against Defendant and its attorneys of record in the amount of $2,812.50.

RULING:

On 5/13/21, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on
Defendant housingassistant.org by electronic mail at seg@rglawyers.com. (Spencer Decl., Ex.A, Form Interrogatories, Proof
of Service). The email address of record
for Defendant housingassistant.org’s attorney, Solomon Gresen, is jh@rglawyers.com. (See eCourt, “Parties”). The instant motion, which requests an order
compelling Defendant housingassistant.com to respond to Plaintiff Gloria
Brown’s Form Interrogatories, Set 1, without objection, within 10 days and requests
sanctions against Defendant and its attorney of record in the amount of
$2,812.50, was also served on seg@rglawyers.com. (See Motion, Proof of Service).

The email address for attorney Gresen in email exchanges
between counsel appears to be seg@rglawyers.com. (See Spencer Decl., Ex.C). However, attorney Gresen’s 6/14/21 email
indicates that he was the only person at his firm who received service of the
discovery implying that service should also have been made on others (i.e., the
email address of record). (See
Spencer Decl., Ex.B). Attorney Gresen’s 7/7/21
email also indicates he was having issues with receiving emails and he
requested that his paralegal be copied at zs@rglawyers.com
on all future correspondence. (See
Spencer Decl., Ex.C). Despite the
foregoing, the instant motion and the reply were served on attorney Gresen only
at seg@rglawyers.com, which as noted
above, is not the email address of record for attorney Gresen. No response/opposition to the motion has been
filed.

If counsel for Defendant housingassistant.org appears at
the hearing and concedes receipt of the underlying discovery and the instant
motion, the request to compel responses without objections to Form
Interrogatories, Set 1, will be granted as Defendant housingassistant.org
failed to serve timely responses. CCP
2030.290(a), (b). Responses will be due
within 30 days. In such case, Defendant
housingassistant.com’s counsel must also clarify its email address of record
for future service.

The request for sanctions will be denied.

CCP 2023.040 provides:

A request for a sanction shall, in
the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom
the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of
motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and
accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any
monetary sanction sought.

Dept. F47

Date: 8/5/22

Case #21CHCV00170

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 2/17/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gloria Brown

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant housingassistant.org

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order
compelling
Defendant housingassistant.com to serve
written responses, without objection, and produce documents responsive to Plaintiff
Gloria Brown’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, without objection,
within 10 days. Additionally, Plaintiff
requests sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record in the amount
of $3,810.00.

RULING:

On 5/7/21, Plaintiff propounded the subject discovery on Defendant
housingassistant.org by electronic mail at seg@rglawyers.com. (Spencer Decl., Ex.A, Requests for Production
of Documents, Proof of Service). The
email address of record for Defendant housingassistant.org’s attorney, Solomon
Gresen, is jh@rglawyers.com. (See eCourt, “Parties”). The instant motion, which requests an order
compelling Defendant housingassistant.com to serve written responses, without
objection, and produce documents responsive to Plaintiff Gloria Brown’s
Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1, without objection, within 10 days
and requests sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record in the
amount of $3,810.00, was also served on seg@rglawyers.com. (See Motion, Proof of Service).

The email address for attorney Gresen in email exchanges
between counsel appears to be seg@rglawyers.com. (See Spencer Decl., Ex.C). However, attorney Gresen’s 6/14/21 email
indicates that he was the only person at his firm who received service of the
discovery implying that service should also have been made on others (i.e., the
email address of record). (See
Spencer Decl., Ex.B). Attorney Gresen’s 7/7/21
email also indicates he was having issues with receiving emails and he
requested that his paralegal be copied at zs@rglawyers.com
on all future correspondence. (See
Spencer Decl., Ex.C). Despite the
foregoing, the instant motion and the reply were served on attorney Gresen only
at seg@rglawyers.com, which as noted
above, is not the email address of record for attorney Gresen. No response/opposition to the motion has been
filed.

If counsel for Defendant housingassistant.org appears at
the hearing and concedes receipt of the underlying discovery and the instant
motion, the request to compel written responses without objections and for the
production of responsive documents to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set 1, will be granted as Defendant housingassistant.org failed to
serve timely responses. CCP 2031.300(a),
(b). Responses will be due within 30
days. In such case, Defendant
housingassistant.com’s counsel must also clarify its email address of record
for future service.

The request for sanctions will be denied.

CCP 2023.040 provides:

A request for a sanction shall, in
the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom
the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of
motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and
accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any
monetary sanction sought.

Here, in the caption of the notice of motion, Plaintiff
indicates that sanctions are sought against “Defendant and its counsel of
record” without identifying a specific defendant or attorney. (See Motion, p.1:20-21). In the body of the notice, Plaintiff requests
sanctions “against Defendant and its attorney of record.” (See Notice of
Motion, p.2:8-9). Again, no specific defendant
or attorney is identified. Additionally,
the amount of sanctions sought is inconsistent.
The body of the notice indicates $3,810.00 is sought whereas the caption
of the notice, the memorandum of points and authorities and the supporting
declaration indicate that $3,750.00 is sought.
(See Motion, p.1:20-21, p.2:8-9, p.5:25; Spencer Decl. ¶13). Even if the party and/or attorney against
whom sanctions are sought had been properly identified, the Court finds that either
amount requested is excessive.