Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV15720, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 24STCV15720    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: 34

1.               Plaintiff Karen Pinkston’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is MOOT.

2.               Plaintiff Karen Pinkston’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is MOOT.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.

Background

             On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff Karen Pinkston (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants 1538 N. Vista Partners, L.P.  (“1538 LP”) and 1538 N. Vista, LLC (“1538 LLC” and collectively with 1538 LP as “Defendants”) arising from Plaintiff’s tenancy alleging causes of action for:

1.               Statutory Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code, §§1941, 1941.1 & 1942.4);

2.               Tortious Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability;

3.               Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

4.               Breach of Contract;

5.               Negligence;

6.               Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision;

7.               Private Nuisance;

8.               Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

9.               Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code (“L.A.M.C”) §45.33;

10.            Violation of Los Angeles County Code Chapter 8.52.130(B);

11.            Violation of Section IX of the County of Los Angeles Covid19 Tenant Protections Resolution;

12.            Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.);

13.            Unlawful Entry (Civil Code, § 1954, et seq.); and

14.            Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code (“L.A.M.C.”) §49.99.2.

            On August 26, 2024, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPDs Motion”), and Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One (“ROGs Motion”). Both motions concerned 1538 LP. On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed Notices of Non-Opposition. On February 24, 2025, Defendant 1538 LP filed oppositions. As of February 25, 2025, Plaintiff has not filed a reply.  

Legal Standard

            California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) 

            For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.) 

            The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel motions for interrogatories or requests for production, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

Discussion

            Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories, on 1538 LP on October 7, 2024. (RPDs Motion, at p. 3, Yenokian Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A; ROGs Motion, at p. 3, Yenokian Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs. A-B.)

            Plaintiff moves the court to compel 1538 LP to serve responses to the discovery requests, without objections, as 1538 LP had not responded. (RPDs Motion, at p. 5; ROGs Motion, at p. 5.) Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions. (Ibid.)

            In opposition, 1538 LP provides the declaration of its counsel which states that responses without objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests are being served and documents are being produced as of February 25, 2025. (Burgee Decl., ¶ 4.) Counsel John G. Burgee (“Burgee”) declares that on October 28, 2024, Burgee emailed Plaintiff's counsel stating that his associate was taking over primary responsibility for the handling of this matter. (Id., ¶ 3.) However, Plaintiff's counsel communicated with Burgee about the discovery responses and, as a result, there was a lack of clarity in Burgee’s office regarding completion of the responses to Plaintiff's discovery. (Ibid.) Burgee declares that discovery had fallen through the cracks in handing off the file after the December holidays. (Id., ¶ 4.)

            Plaintiff has not filed any reply.

            There is no evidence before the court that would indicate that 1538 LP has not responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests or any issues with 1538 LP responses purported to Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff’s motions are moot and Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are denied.

Conclusion

1.               Plaintiff Karen Pinkston’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is MOOT.

2.               Plaintiff Karen Pinkston’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is MOOT.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.