Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV21977, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCV21977    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 40

22STCV21977 Marc Alan Corbin, et al. v. 720 Normandie LP., et al.

Tuesday, April 22, 2025.

 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AS MOOT

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

                                                                                        I.          BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Marc Alan Corbin and Megan Ellen Corbin (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint alleging that their apartment had a mold problem, the landlords sold the property without fixing the issue, and the new landlords ultimately evicted Plaintiffs in retaliation for their complaints. On March 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Tortious Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability, (2) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability, (3) Nuisance (Negligent), (4) Nuisance (Intentional), (5) Negligence, (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (7) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, and (8) Premises Liability against Defendants 720 Normandie LP, 720 Normandie Partnership, Inc. (collectively “Normandie”), Prana Investments (“Prana”), Prana Holding Company, LLC, Vine Property Services, Inc. (“Vine”), Citywide Property Management and Consulting Inc., erroneously sued as “Kim & Casey Property Management” (“Citywide”), Statewide Enterprises, Inc. (“Statewide”), Defendants Jamison Services, Inc. (“Jamison”), 709 S. Mariposa Ave., LLC (“Mariposa”), and DOES 4-50.

Defendant Prana Holding Company, LLC was served with the original complaint on October 14, 2022. Defendant Mariposa was served with the original complaint on December 5, 2022. There is no proof of service indicating that either defendant has been served with the FAC.

On December 20, 2024, Defendants Prana Investments, Prana Holding Company, LLC and Statewide Enterprises (“Defendants”) filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions in the amount of $1,435.00 against Plaintiff and his Attorney of Record.

On April 17, 2025, Plaintiff Marc Corbin (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition.

No reply was filed.

                                                                                         II.          DISCUSSION

When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)  

The Court finds that Defendants’ motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories is MOOT due to Plaintiff’s provision of verified responses.

Plaintiff's prior attorneys served responses to the Special Interrogatories with verifications on Defendants’ counsel on December 20, 2024. (Corbin Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7; Ex. A.) On the same day, Defendants filed this motion. Plaintiff served responses on the same day Defendant filed the instant motion.  The circumstances do not warrant sanctions.  Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request for sanctions.

                                                                                 III.                    CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motions are MOOT. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.