Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 23GDCV01801, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV01801, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01801 Hearing Date: November 25, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

ARAM DJAGHARBEKIAN, an individual; GILDA DJAGHARBEKIAN, an individual; ANNA DJAGHARBEKIAN, an individual; and ALEX DJAGHARBEKIAN, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

LISA WONG, as an individual and as trustee of the WONG AND TSAI FAMILY TRUST; DOE COTRUSTEE (DOE 1), as an individual and as trustee of the WONG AND TSAI FAMILY TRUST; DOE PROPERTY MANAGER (DOE 2), an individual; and DOES 3-50, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23GDCV01801
Hearing Date: November 25, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTIN OF DOCUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF ARAM DJAGHARBEKIAN

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant LISA WONG
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a residential lease. Plaintiffs Aram Djagharbekian (Aram), Gilda Djagharbekian (Gilda), Anna Djagharbekian (Anna), and Alex Djagharbekian (Alex) (collectively, plaintiffs) filed the complaint against defendants Lisa Wong (Wong), as an individual and as trustee of the Wong and Tsai Family Trust; Doe Cotrustee (Doe 1), as an individual and as trustee of the Wong and Tsai Family Trust; and Doe Property Manager (DOE 2) on August 23, 2023. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Unfair Business Practices; (4) Nuisance; (5) Negligence; (6) Fraud; (7) Financial Elder Abuse; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Abuse; (10) Violation of CHSC § 17975, et. seq.; and (11) Elder Abuse.

Plaintiffs Aram and Gilda leased a single-family residence in 2012, located at 3601 E. Chevy Chase Dr. Glendale, California (subject property) from defendants. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of mold found in the subject property, plaintiffs experienced serious health issues some of which led to hospitalization. After the hospitalization, defendants opened the walls of the subject premises and found widespread toxic mold in the residence. Plaintiffs allege that as a direct and proximate result of the toxic mold and the intentional and negligent disregard of plaintiffs’ concerns and the presence of odor and damp conditions by defendants, plaintiffs developed severe respiratory problems, adverse health effects like fatigue, asthmas, and other long term adverse health effects.

Plaintiffs’ counsel filed motions to be relieved as counsel on the grounds of a breakdown in communication and irreconcilable differences. On November 4, 2024, the court continued plaintiffs’ attorney’s motions to be relieved as counsel for plaintiffs’ attorney to give plaintiffs proper notice of those motions.

Defendant filed the instant motions on July 24, 2024. No opposition has been received.

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff may serve a request for production of documents and interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020(b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020(b).)

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260(a), 2031.270(a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2030.270(a)-(b).)

Where there has been no timely response to a request for the production of documents or to interrogatories, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production of documents, the party to whom the request is directed waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a request for production and interrogatories, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents

Defendant Wong served plaintiff Aram on November 8, 2023, with the Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) via email. (Carpenter Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4; Exhs. A, B.) Defendant followed up with plaintiffs’ counsel by sending a letter requesting verified answers to be provided on March 6, 2024. (Carpenter Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. C.) As of the date defendant filed this motion, plaintiff Aram has not provided verified responses to Form Interrogatories or Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff Aram’s responses were due by December 12, 2023. Since verified responses have not been served by plaintiff Aram, the court grants defendant Wong’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.

B. Sanctions

Defendant Wong requests sanctions be imposed against plaintiff Aram in the amount of $360 per plaintiff. While plaintiff Aram has failed to provide responses to discovery, the court finds that sanctions are not warranted in this situation given the breakdown in communication between plaintiff Aram and his counsel.

C. Filing Fees

Defendant Wong filed the motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents as one motion. A motion must be brought separately for each discovery method at issue. Here, the instant motion to compel responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents should have been filed as two separate motions and two filing fees paid, one for each motion. Accordingly, defendant is ordered to pay the additional filing fee.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents served on plaintiff Aram Djagharbekian.

Defendant is ordered to pay an additional filing fee to the court. Defendant Wong is ordered to give notice of this ruling.