Judge: Michael L. Stern, Case: 23TCV08580, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TCV08580    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 62

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 62

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

TENTATIVE RULING

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Isabel Ortega’s Motion to Compel Defendant Vincent Martin’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Vincent Martin is ordered to provide responses, without objection, to both Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED.

Defendant Vincent Martin and his counsel are ordered to pay $2,500.00 in sanctions, within 20 days, to Plaintiff Isabel Ortega pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 2023.030 subdivision (a). 

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Isabel Ortega (“Plaintiff” or “Ortega”), Francisco Barragan (“Barragan”), Yolanda Ortega (“Yolanda”), Julian Casanova by and through his guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Isabel Ortega; Julia Yanira Guerra, Victor Enriquez by and through his GAL, Julia Yanira Guerra; Sandra Escarcega (“Sandra”), Juan Carlos Nunez (“Nunez”), and Allen Barcenas by and through his GAL, Sandra Escarcega (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants Vincent C. Martin and Colleen Vincent as Trustees of the Vincent Family Trust, Integrity Property Management, Inc. (“Integrity”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 10, for six causes of action: (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment, (3) nuisance, (4) violation of Civil Code section 1941.1, et seq., (5) negligence, and (6) violation of City of Los Angeles’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance (April 1978) - S.152, et seq. Additionally, Plaintiffs Yolanda, Ortega, Barragan, Nunez, and Sandra alleged the seventh cause of action against all Defendants for rights violation of the provisions of California’s FEHA (Govt. Code § 12955, et seq.) on account of Plaintiffs Yoland and Nunez’s disability and medical conditions.

On May 28, 2023, Plaintiffs individually served Defendants with the first set of discovery requests which included Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. “C.”)

Subsequently, Plaintiffs granted Defendants three separate two-week extensions of time to respond to discovery requests – specifically on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023 – thereby setting the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to expire on September 19, 2023. However, Defendants did not provide any responses before this deadline. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Alfred O. Anyia, sent a meet and confer email to Defendants’ counsel and granted Defendants a seven-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. However, Mr. Anyia did not receive responses from Defendants. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff Ortega filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Vincent Martin’s Responses to both Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Additionally, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00 against Defendant Vincent C. Martin, Trustee of the Vincent Family Trust, and his counsel Napoleon Tercero.

No opposing papers were received.

Discussion

1.      Legal Standard

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless, on motion by the propounding party, the court extends or shortens the time to respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)  

If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)   

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).) 

A court has discretion to “impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct” under Code Civil Procedure section 2023.030 subdivision (a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.) 

2.      Application

Plaintiffs seek an order from the court to: (1) compel Defendant Vincent C. Martin to serve responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) compel Defendant Vincent C. Martin to serve responses, without objection, to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00 against Vincent C. Martin and his counsel, as compensation for the costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this motion.

Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that on May 28, 2023, he served Defendant Vincent C. Martin Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2.) Despite being granted multiple two-week extensions on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023, as well as a seven-day extension on October 19, 2023, Defendant Vincent C. Martin failed to provide any responses. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel made attempts to meet and confer; however, Defendant Vincent C. Martin failed to serve responses to the requests. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

Based on the Declaration of Alfred O. Anyia, Plaintiffs’ counsel, it is evident that Defendant Vincent C. Martin has failed to provide timely responses to discovery requests despite being granted multiple extensions over a period of more than five months. Consequently, the Court determines that Defendant Vincent C. Martin has waived any objection to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 subdivision (a).

The Court, therefore, concludes that it is appropriate to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Vincent Martin’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One.

As to monetary sanctions, Plaintiff has requested $2,500.00 under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. This amount is based on a $500.00 hourly rate, accounting for 4 hours spent preparing, researching, and reviewing the motion, and 1 hour for attending the hearing. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that for the purpose of calculating monetary sanctions, he has reduced his billed hours in other concurrently filed motions that follow the same template of the instant motion. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $2,500.00 against Defendant Vincent C. Martin and his counsel, jointly and severally.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Vincent Martin’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. 

Defendant Vincent C. Martin is hereby ordered to provide responses, without objection, to both Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED.

Defendant Vincent C. Marin and his counsel are hereby ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the total amount of $2,500.00 within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January 24, 2024   SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 62

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

TENTATIVE RULING

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Isabel Ortega’s Motion to Compel Defendant Colleen Vincent’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Colleen Vincent is ordered to provide responses, without objection, to both Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED.

Defendant Colleen Vincent and her counsel are ordered to pay $750.00 in sanctions, within 20 days, to Plaintiff Isabel Ortega pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 2023.030 subdivision (a). 

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Isabel Ortega (“Plaintiff” or “Ortega”), Francisco Barragan (“Barragan”), Yolanda Ortega (“Yolanda”), Julian Casanova by and through his guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Isabel Ortega; Julia Yanira Guerra, Victor Enriquez by and through his GAL, Julia Yanira Guerra; Sandra Escarcega (“Sandra”), Juan Carlos Nunez (“Nunez”), and Allen Barcenas by and through his GAL, Sandra Escarcega (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants Vincent C. Martin and Colleen Vincent as Trustees of the Vincent Family Trust, Integrity Property Management, Inc. (“Integrity”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 10, for six causes of action: (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment, (3) nuisance, (4) violation of Civil Code section 1941.1, et seq., (5) negligence, and (6) violation of City of Los Angeles’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance (April 1978) - S.152, et seq. Additionally, Plaintiffs Yolanda, Ortega, Barragan, Nunez, and Sandra alleged the seventh cause of action against all Defendants for rights violation of the provisions of California’s FEHA (Govt. Code § 12955, et seq.) on account of Plaintiffs Yoland and Nunez’s disability and medical conditions.

On May 28, 2023, Plaintiffs individually served Defendants with the first set of discovery requests which included Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. “C.”)

Subsequently, Plaintiffs granted Defendants three separate two-week extensions of time to respond to discovery requests – specifically on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023 – thereby setting the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to expire on September 19, 2023. However, Defendants did not provide any responses before this deadline. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Alfred O. Anyia, sent a meet and confer email to Defendants’ counsel and granted Defendants a seven-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. However, Mr. Anyia did not receive responses from Defendants. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff Ortega filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Colleen Vincent’s Responses to both Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Additionally, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $750.00 against Defendant Colleen Vincent, Trustee of the Vincent Family Trust, and her counsel Napoleon Tercero.

No opposing papers were received.

Discussion

1.      Legal Standard

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless, on motion by the propounding party, the court extends or shortens the time to respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)  

If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)   

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).) 

A court has discretion to “impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct” under Code Civil Procedure section 2023.030 subdivision (a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.) 

2.      Application

Plaintiffs seek an order from the court to: (1) compel Defendant Colleen Vincent to serve responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) compel Defendant Colleen Vincent to serve responses, without objection, to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $750.00 against Colleen Vincent and her counsel, as compensation for the costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this motion.

Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that on May 28, 2023, he served Defendant Colleen Vincent Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2.) Despite being granted multiple two-week extensions on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023, as well as a seven-day extension on October 19, 2023, Defendant Colleen Vincent failed to provide any responses. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel made attempts to meet and confer; however, Defendant Colleen Vincent failed to serve responses to the requests. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

Based on the Declaration of Alfred O. Anyia, Plaintiffs’ counsel, it is evident that Defendant Colleen Vincent has failed to provide timely responses to discovery requests despite being granted multiple extensions over a period of more than five months. Consequently, the Court determines that Defendant Colleen Vincent has waived any objection to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 subdivision (a).

The Court, therefore, concludes that it is appropriate to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Colleen Vincent’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One.

As to monetary sanctions, Plaintiff has requested $750.00 under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. This amount is based on a $500.00 hourly rate, accounting for 1 hour spent preparing, researching, and reviewing the motion, and 0.5 hours for attending the hearing. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that for the purpose of calculating monetary sanctions, he has reduced his billed hours in the instant motion by following the same template as other concurrently filed motions. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $750.00 against Defendant Colleen Vincent and her counsel, jointly and severally.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Colleen Vincent’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. 

Defendant Colleen Vincent is hereby ordered to provide responses, without objection, to both Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED.

Defendant Colleen Vincent and her counsel are hereby ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the total amount of $750.00 within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January 24, 2024     SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 62

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

TENTATIVE RULING

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Isabel Ortega’s Motion to Compel Defendant Integrity’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Integrity Property Management, Inc. is ordered to provide responses, without objection, to both Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED.

Defendant Integrity Property Management, Inc. and its counsel are ordered to pay $500.00 in sanctions, within 20 days, to Plaintiff Isabel Ortega pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 2023.030 subdivision (a). 

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Isabel Ortega (“Plaintiff” or “Ortega”), Francisco Barragan (“Barragan”), Yolanda Ortega (“Yolanda”), Julian Casanova by and through his guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Isabel Ortega; Julia Yanira Guerra, Victor Enriquez by and through his GAL, Julia Yanira Guerra; Sandra Escarcega (“Sandra”), Juan Carlos Nunez (“Nunez”), and Allen Barcenas by and through his GAL, Sandra Escarcega (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants Vincent C. Martin and Colleen Vincent as Trustees of the Vincent Family Trust, Integrity Property Management, Inc. (“Integrity”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 10, for six causes of action: (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment, (3) nuisance, (4) violation of Civil Code section 1941.1, et seq., (5) negligence, and (6) violation of City of Los Angeles’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance (April 1978) - S.152, et seq. Additionally, Plaintiffs Yolanda, Ortega, Barragan, Nunez, and Sandra alleged the seventh cause of action against all Defendants for rights violation of the provisions of California’s FEHA (Govt. Code § 12955, et seq.) on account of Plaintiffs Yoland and Nunez’s disability and medical conditions.

On May 28, 2023, Plaintiffs individually served Defendants with the first set of discovery requests which included Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. “C.”)

Subsequently, Plaintiffs granted Defendants three separate two-week extensions of time to respond to discovery requests – specifically on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023 – thereby setting the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to expire on September 19, 2023. However, Defendants did not provide any responses before this deadline. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Alfred O. Anyia, sent a meet and confer email to Defendants’ counsel and granted Defendants a seven-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. However, Mr. Anyia did not receive responses from Defendants. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff Ortega filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Integrity’s Responses to both Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Additionally, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $500.00 against Defendant Integrity and its counsel Napoleon Tercero.

No opposing papers were received.

Discussion

1.      Legal Standard

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless, on motion by the propounding party, the court extends or shortens the time to respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).)  

If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)   

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).) 

A court has discretion to “impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct” under Code Civil Procedure section 2023.030 subdivision (a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.) 

2.      Application

Plaintiffs seek an order from the court to: (1) compel Defendant Integrity to serve responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) compel Defendant Integrity to serve responses, without objection, to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $500.00 against Integrity and its counsel, as compensation for the costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this motion.

Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that on May 28, 2023, he served Defendant Integrity Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2.) Despite being granted multiple two-week extensions on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023, as well as a seven-day extension on October 19, 2023, Defendant Integrity failed to provide any responses. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel made attempts to meet and confer; however, Defendant Integrity failed to serve responses to the requests. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

Based on the Declaration of Alfred O. Anyia, Plaintiffs’ counsel, it is evident that Defendant Integrity has failed to provide timely responses to discovery requests despite being granted multiple extensions over a period of more than five months. Consequently, the Court determines that Defendant Integrity has waived any objection to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 subdivision (a).

The Court, therefore, concludes that it is appropriate to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Integrity Responses to Interrogatories, Set One.

As to monetary sanctions, Plaintiff has requested $500.00 under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. This amount is based on a $500.00 hourly rate, accounting for 1 total hour for preparing, researching, reviewing the motion, and attending the hearing. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that for the purpose of calculating monetary sanctions, he has reduced his billed hours in the instant motion by following the same template as other concurrently filed motions. (11/17/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $500.00 against Defendant Integrity and its counsel, jointly and severally.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Integrity’s Responses to Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. 

Defendant Integrity is hereby ordered to provide responses, without objection, to both Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED.

Defendant Integrity and its counsel are hereby ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the total amount of $500.00 within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January 24, 2024   SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 62

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

TENTATIVE RULING

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Isabel Ortega’s Motion to Compel Defendant Vincent Martin’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Vincent Martin is ordered to provide responses, without objection, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Vincent Martin and his counsel are ordered to pay $1,000.00 in sanctions, within 20 days, to Plaintiff Isabel Ortega pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 2023.030 subdivision (a). 

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Isabel Ortega (“Plaintiff” or “Ortega”), Francisco Barragan (“Barragan”), Yolanda Ortega (“Yolanda”), Julian Casanova by and through his guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Isabel Ortega; Julia Yanira Guerra, Victor Enriquez by and through his GAL, Julia Yanira Guerra; Sandra Escarcega (“Sandra”), Juan Carlos Nunez (“Nunez”), and Allen Barcenas by and through his GAL, Sandra Escarcega (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants Vincent C. Martin and Colleen Vincent as Trustees of the Vincent Family Trust, Integrity Property Management, Inc. (“Integrity”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 10, for six causes of action: (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment, (3) nuisance, (4) violation of Civil Code section 1941.1, et seq., (5) negligence, and (6) violation of City of Los Angeles’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance (April 1978) - S.152, et seq. Additionally, Plaintiffs Yolanda, Ortega, Barragan, Nunez, and Sandra alleged the seventh cause of action against all Defendants for rights violation of the provisions of California’s FEHA (Govt. Code § 12955, et seq.) on account of Plaintiffs Yoland and Nunez’s disability and medical conditions.

On May 28, 2023, Plaintiffs individually served Defendants with the first set of discovery requests which included Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. “C.”)

Subsequently, Plaintiffs granted Defendants three separate two-week extensions of time to respond to discovery requests – specifically on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023 – thereby setting the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to expire on September 19, 2023. However, Defendants did not provide any responses before this deadline. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Alfred O. Anyia, sent a meet and confer email to Defendants’ counsel and granted Defendants a seven-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. However, Mr. Anyia did not receive responses from Defendants. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff Ortega filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Vincent Martin’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. Additionally, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00 against Defendant Vincent C. Martin, Trustee of the Vincent Family Trust, and his counsel Napoleon Tercero.

No opposing papers were received.

Discussion

1.      Legal Standard

“Within 30 days after service” of a demand for inspection, the responding party shall serve responses to the discovery “unless on motion” the court has shortened or extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) The propounding and responding parties can also agree to extend the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.270, subd. (a).) 

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a)¿The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…. The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections … (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

Code Civil Procedure section 2023.010 subdivision (d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Code Civil Procedure section 2023.010 subdivision (h) states that a misuse of the discovery process includes “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery.”  

A court has discretion to “impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct” under Code Civil Procedure section 2023.030 subdivision (a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.) 

2.      Application

Plaintiff seeks an order from the court to: (1) compel Defendant Vincent C. Martin to serve responses, without objection, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One; and (2) impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00 against Vincent C. Martin and his counsel, as compensation for the costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this motion.

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that on May 28, 2023, he served Defendant Vincent C. Martin Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2.) Despite being granted multiple two-week extensions on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023, as well as a seven-day extension on October 19, 2023, Defendant Vincent C. Martin failed to provide any responses. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel made attempts to meet and confer; however, Defendant Vincent C. Martin failed to serve responses to the requests. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

Based on the Declaration of Alfred O. Anyia, Plaintiff’s counsel, it is evident that Defendant Vincent C. Martin has failed to provide timely responses to discovery requests despite being granted multiple extensions over a period of more than five months. Consequently, the Court determines that Defendant Vincent C. Martin has waived any objection to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 subdivision (a).

The Court, therefore, concludes that it is appropriate to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Vincent Martin’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

As to monetary sanctions, Plaintiff has requested $1,500.00 under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. This amount is based on a $500.00 hourly rate, accounting for 2 hours spent preparing, researching, and reviewing the motion, and 1 hour for attending the hearing. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that for the purpose of calculating monetary sanctions, he has reduced his billed hours in other concurrently filed motions that follow the same template of the instant motion. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction in the reasonable amount of $1,000.00 against Defendant Vincent C. Martin and his counsel, jointly and severally. This amount is calculated as follows: $500.00/hour x (1.5 hours for preparing the motion +0.5 hours attending the hearing)

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Vincent Martin’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Vincent C. Martin is hereby ordered to provide responses, without objection, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Defendant Vincent C. Marin and his counsel are hereby ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the total amount of $1,000.00 within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January 24, 2024  SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 62

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

TENTATIVE RULING

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Isabel Ortega’s Motion to Compel Defendant Colleen Vincent’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED.

Defendant Colleen Vincent is ordered to provide responses, without objection, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Colleen Vincent and her counsel are ordered to pay $750.00 in sanctions, within 20 days, to Plaintiff Isabel Ortega pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 2023.030 subdivision (a). 

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Isabel Ortega (“Plaintiff” or “Ortega”), Francisco Barragan (“Barragan”), Yolanda Ortega (“Yolanda”), Julian Casanova by and through his guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Isabel Ortega; Julia Yanira Guerra, Victor Enriquez by and through his GAL, Julia Yanira Guerra; Sandra Escarcega (“Sandra”), Juan Carlos Nunez (“Nunez”), and Allen Barcenas by and through his GAL, Sandra Escarcega (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants Vincent C. Martin and Colleen Vincent as Trustees of the Vincent Family Trust, Integrity Property Management, Inc. (“Integrity”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 10, for six causes of action: (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment, (3) nuisance, (4) violation of Civil Code section 1941.1, et seq., (5) negligence, and (6) violation of City of Los Angeles’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance (April 1978) - S.152, et seq. Additionally, Plaintiffs Yolanda, Ortega, Barragan, Nunez, and Sandra alleged the seventh cause of action against all Defendants for rights violation of the provisions of California’s FEHA (Govt. Code § 12955, et seq.) on account of Plaintiffs Yoland and Nunez’s disability and medical conditions.

On May 28, 2023, Plaintiffs individually served Defendants with the first set of discovery requests which included Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. “C.”)

Subsequently, Plaintiffs granted Defendants three separate two-week extensions of time to respond to discovery requests – specifically on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023 – thereby setting the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to expire on September 19, 2023. However, Defendants did not provide any responses before this deadline. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Alfred O. Anyia, sent a meet and confer email to Defendants’ counsel and granted Defendants a seven-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. However, Mr. Anyia did not receive responses from Defendants. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff Ortega filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Colleen Vincent’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. Additionally, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 against Defendant Colleen Vincent, Trustee of the Vincent Family Trust, and her counsel Napoleon Tercero.

No opposing papers were received.

Discussion

1.      Legal Standard

“Within 30 days after service” of a demand for inspection, the responding party shall serve responses to the discovery “unless on motion” the court has shortened or extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) The propounding and responding parties can also agree to extend the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.270, subd. (a).) 

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a)¿The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…. The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections … (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

Code Civil Procedure section 2023.010 subdivision (d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Code Civil Procedure section 2023.010 subdivision (h) states that a misuse of the discovery process includes “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery.”  

A court has discretion to “impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising such conduct” under Code Civil Procedure section 2023.030 subdivision (a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.) 

2.      Application

Plaintiff seeks an order from the court to: (1) compel Defendant Colleen Vincent to serve responses, without objection, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One; and (2) impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 against Colleen Vincent and her counsel, as compensation for the costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this motion.

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that on May 28, 2023, he served Defendant Colleen Vincent Demand for Production of Documents, Set One. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2.) Despite being granted multiple two-week extensions on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023, as well as a seven-day extension on October 19, 2023, Defendant Colleen Vincent failed to provide any responses. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel made attempts to meet and confer; however, Defendant Colleen Vincent failed to serve responses to the requests. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

Based on the Declaration of Alfred O. Anyia, Plaintiff’s counsel, it is evident that Defendant Colleen Vincent has failed to provide timely responses to discovery requests despite being granted multiple extensions over a period of more than five months. Consequently, the Court determines that Defendant Colleen Vincent has waived any objection to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 subdivision (a).

The Court, therefore, concludes that it is appropriate to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Colleen Vincent’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.

As to monetary sanctions, Plaintiff has requested $1,000.00 under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. This amount is based on a $500.00 hourly rate, accounting for 2 hours spent preparing the motion, and attending the hearing. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that for the purpose of calculating monetary sanctions, he has reduced his billed hours in the instant motion by following the same template as other concurrently filed motions. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction in the reasonable amount of $ 750.00 against Defendant Colleen Vincent and her counsel, jointly and severally. This amount is calculated as follows: $500.00/hour x (1 hour for preparing the motion +0.5 hours attending the hearing)

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Colleen Vincent’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant Colleen Vincent is hereby ordered to provide responses, without objection, to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Defendant Colleen Vincent and her counsel are hereby ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the total amount of $750.00 within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January 24, 2024 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 62

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

TENTATIVE RULING

Tentative
Ruling: Plaintiff Isabel Ortega’s Motion to Compel Defendant Integrity Property
Management, Inc.’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, is
GRANTED.

Defendant
Integrity Property Management, Inc. is ordered to provide responses, without objection,
to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, within 20 days.

Plaintiff’s
request for monetary sanction is GRANTED.

Defendant
Integrity Property Management, Inc. and its counsel are ordered to pay $500.00
in sanctions, within 20 days, to Plaintiff Isabel Ortega pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedures section 2023.030 subdivision (a). 

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Isabel Ortega
(“Plaintiff” or “Ortega”), Francisco Barragan (“Barragan”), Yolanda Ortega
(“Yolanda”), Julian Casanova by and through his guardian ad litem (“GAL”),
Isabel Ortega; Julia Yanira Guerra, Victor Enriquez by and through his GAL,
Julia Yanira Guerra; Sandra Escarcega (“Sandra”), Juan Carlos Nunez (“Nunez”),
and Allen Barcenas by and through his GAL, Sandra Escarcega (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants Vincent C. Martin and
Colleen Vincent as Trustees of the Vincent Family Trust, Integrity Property
Management, Inc. (“Integrity”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through
10, for six causes of action: (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) breach
of warranty of quiet enjoyment, (3) nuisance, (4) violation of Civil Code
section 1941.1, et seq., (5) negligence, and (6) violation of City of Los
Angeles’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance (April 1978) - S.152, et seq. Additionally,
Plaintiffs Yolanda, Ortega, Barragan, Nunez, and Sandra alleged the seventh
cause of action against all Defendants for rights violation of the provisions
of California’s FEHA (Govt. Code § 12955, et seq.) on account of Plaintiffs
Yoland and Nunez’s disability and medical conditions.

On May 28, 2023, Plaintiffs individually served
Defendants with the first set of discovery requests which included Form
Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Demand for
Production of Documents, Set One. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. “C.”)

Subsequently, Plaintiffs granted Defendants three
separate two-week extensions of time to respond to discovery requests –
specifically on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and September 5, 2023 – thereby
setting the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests to expire on
September 19, 2023. However, Defendants did not provide any responses before this
deadline. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Alfred
O. Anyia, sent a meet and confer email to Defendants’ counsel and granted
Defendants a seven-day extension of time for Defendants to respond to
Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. However, Mr. Anyia did not receive responses
from Defendants. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 5.)

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff Ortega filed the
instant Motion to Compel Defendant Integrity’s Responses to Demand for
Production of Documents, Set One. Additionally, Plaintiff requests monetary
sanctions in the amount of $500.00 against Defendant Integrity and its counsel
Napoleon Tercero.

No opposing papers were received.

Discussion

1.      Legal
Standard

“Within 30 days after
service” of a demand for inspection, the responding party shall serve responses
to the discovery “unless on motion” the court has shortened or extended the
time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) The propounding
and responding parties can also agree to extend the time for response. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.270, subd. (a).) 

“If a party to whom a demand
for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a
timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a)¿The party to whom
the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any
objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection
for work product…. The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this
waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are
satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in
substantial compliance with Sections … (2) The party’s failure to serve a
timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

Code Civil Procedure section
2023.010 subdivision (d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is
“[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Code
Civil Procedure section 2023.010 subdivision (h) states that a misuse of the
discovery process includes “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without
substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery.”  

A court has discretion to “impose a monetary
sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or any
attorney advising such conduct” under Code Civil Procedure section 2023.030
subdivision (a). A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable
monetary sanctions. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare
Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.) 

2.      Application

Plaintiff seeks an order from the
court to: (1) compel Defendant Integrity to serve responses, without objection,
to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One; and (2) impose monetary
sanctions in the amount of $500.00 against Integrity and its counsel, as
compensation for the costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff in bringing
this motion.

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that
on May 28, 2023, he served Defendant Integrity Demand for Production of
Documents, Set One. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 2.) Despite being
granted multiple two-week extensions on July 24, 2023, August 21, 2023, and
September 5, 2023, as well as a seven-day extension on October 19, 2023,
Defendant Integrity failed to provide any responses. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)

Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel
made attempts to meet and confer; however, Defendant Integrity failed to serve
responses to the requests. (11/20/2023
Anyia
Decl., ¶ 5.)

Based on the Declaration of Alfred
O. Anyia, Plaintiff’s counsel, it is evident that Defendant Integrity has
failed to provide timely responses to discovery requests despite being granted multiple
extensions over a period of more than five months. Consequently, the Court
determines that Defendant Integrity has waived any objection to Demand for
Production of Documents, Set One, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 2031.300 subdivision (a).

The
Court, therefore, concludes that it is appropriate to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel Defendant Integrity’s
Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set
One.

As to monetary
sanctions, Plaintiff has requested $500.00 under Code of Civil Procedure
section 2023.030. This amount is based on a $500.00 hourly rate, accounting for
1 hour for preparing the motion and attending the hearing. Additionally,
Plaintiff’s counsel declares that for the purpose of calculating monetary
sanctions, he has reduced his billed hours in the instant motion by following
the same template as other concurrently filed motions. (11/20/2023 Anyia Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Court also GRANTS
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $500.00
against Defendant Integrity and its counsel, jointly and severally.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Defendant Integrity’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One,
is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff’s request for monetary
sanction is GRANTED.

Defendant Integrity is hereby
ordered to provide responses, without objection, to Demand for Production of
Documents, Set One, within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Defendant Integrity and its counsel
are hereby ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the total amount
of $500.00 within 20 days of receiving notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January 24,
2024