Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV00498, Date: 2025-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00498, Date: 2025-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV00498 Hearing Date: January 2, 2025 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: January 2, 2025

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV00498

CASE NAME: Noah Gebregziabher; Misrak Abebe v. Briarwood Homeowners Association No. One, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Noah Gebregziabher and Misrak Abebe

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Briarwood Homeowners Association No. One, Inc.

TRIAL DATE: November 17, 2025

MOTION: (1) Plaintiff Noah Gebregziabher’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

(2) Plaintiff Noah Gebregziabher’s Request for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) MOOTED.

(2) GRANTED in the lowered amount of $1,500.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiffs, Noah Gebregziabher and Misrak Abebe (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Briarwood Homeowners Association No. One, and DOES 1 through 10. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Enforcement of Equitable Servitudes; (3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Negligence; (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (6) Nuisance; (7) Violation of Civil Code section 5205(A); (8) Violation of Civil Code section 5300(A); and (9) Declaratory Relief. The complaint is based on Plaintiffs’ allegations that the HOA has a longstanding failure to: (1) timely address a termite infestation in its common areas, which resulted in interior and exterior damage to Plaintiffs’ condominium; and (2) fully and timely comply with Mr. Gebregziabher’s multiple Demands for Records pursuant to Civil Code section 5200 et seq.

On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff, Noah Gabregziabher (“Gabregziabher”) served his first set of discovery on Defendant, Briarwood Homeowners Association No. One (“Defendant”). On August 9, 2024, after being granted an extension to respond, Defendant served its responses. However, upon review of the responses, Plaintiff Gabregziabher asserts that Defendant’s responses included significant deficiencies, including, but not limited to, Defendant’s failure to provide complete responses to some Form Interrogatories and failure to address other Form

Interrogatories altogether. The Parties engaged in several meet and confer attempts, but the attempts were unsuccessful.

As such, Plaintiff Gabregziabher has filed a Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

B. Procedural¿¿¿

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff Gabregziabher filed this Motion to Compel Defendant’s further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. On December 19, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief. On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff Gabregziabher filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Responses to interrogatories must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, then it must be answered to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that” the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code of Civ. Proc. §¿2030.300(a).) Notice of the motions must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2030.300(c).)

B. Discussion

i. Meet and Confer

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jessica P. Grazul, states in her declaration (“Grazul Decl.”) that on September 4, 2024, her firm sent an email to Defense Counsel explaining in detail the perceived deficiencies and requested Defendant amend its responses. (Grazul Decl., ¶ 6.) On September 10, 2024, Grazul declares that Defense Counsel emailed her back, agreeing to further meet and confer on the matter, and requested Grazul to provide dates and times for a telephonic meet and confer, agreeing to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to move to compel further responses until October 23, 2024. (Grazul Decl., ¶ 7.) The next day, on September 11, 2024, Grazul states that she provided Defense Counsel with her availability for a telephonic meet and confer, but that Defense Counsel did not call her, nor did he provide her with alternative dates for that meet and confer. (Grazul Decl., ¶ 8, Exhibit 5.)

After not receiving a response from Defense Counsel, Grazul states that on October 14, 2024, she sent a follow up email requesting a further extension until November 4, 2024 to file motions to compel further responses and requesting Defense Counsel’s availability for a meet and confer call. (Grazul Decl., ¶ 9.) However, Grazul submits that while Defense Counsel agreed to the requested extension, he failed to engage on further meet and confer efforts regarding the Defendant’s further responses. (Grazul Decl., ¶ 9.) Further communication ensued between counsel as detailed in the moving papers.

ii. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Plaintiff Gebregziabher’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One seeks further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.6-12.7, 15.1, and also seeks responses, without objection to Form Interrogatories Nos. 50.1-50.6, as Defendant provided no response. The Court rules on each as follows:

FROG No. 12.6-12.7, & 15.1: MOOTED. The Court finds that the filing of supplemental responses prior to the hearing moots the motion to compel further. However, because these supplemental responses were not served until after numerous extensions and not until this motion was filed, the Court finds that sanctions will not be mooted in this case, as discussed further below.

FROG No. 50.1-50.6: MOOTED as to the motion to compel initial responses. Defendant conceded that the 50 series were inadvertently not responded to in the initial responses. Defendant claims to have informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that they had every intention of responding to these interrogatories on December 19, 2024, however, this intention only came after Defense Counsel missed yet another due date for discovery responses. The Court also believes this argument underscores Plaintiff Gebregziabher’s efforts in receiving these missing discovery responses since September 10, 2024. As such, although the Motion to Compel Initial Responses to FROGs 50.1-50.6 is mooted by the supplemental responses received prior to the hearing of this motion, the receival of these untimely responses will not moot the sanctions requested, as discussed in further detail below.

iii. Sanctions

Along with each motion, Plaintiff Gebregziabher has requested sanctions in the amount of $3,931. This amount is based on Grazul’s declaration that she spent a total of 6.8 hours working on this discovery motion, and that her hourly rate is $395. (Grazul Decl., ¶ 16.) Grazul states she anticipates spending an additional 2 hours preparing a reply brief to the opposition, and 1 hour for preparation and appearance at the hearing, as well as the $60 filing fee. (Grazul Decl., ¶ 16.) Here, the Court finds 9.8 hours excessive for a generic discovery motion with nine (9) total discovery responses at issue. Instead, the Court GRANTS the request for monetary sanctions, but in the lowered amount of $1,500. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel this sanction amount on or before January 23, 2025.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Gebregziabher’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is MOOTED. However, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the lowered amount of $1,500 payable on or before January 23, 2025. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.