Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 23STCV02953, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV02953, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02953 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: 39

Genesis Pink v. 5335 W Adams LA LLC

Case No. 23STCV02953

NOTICE

The Court posts these tentative orders on Tuesday, March 5, 2024, at approximately 8:00 a.m., in advance of the hearings on Friday, March 8, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. If Plaintiff does not appear at the hearing, either remotely or in-person, she shall waive the right to be heard and shall submit to entry of these orders.

Order #1 of 3

Motion to Deem Admitted

Defendants move to have the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”) deemed admitted by Plaintiff Genesis Pink. The RFAs were served on or about April 5, 2023. (Declaration of Michael B. Seuylemezian, dated December 28, 2023, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff had not responded to the RfAs as of the time the motion was filed. (Id., ¶ 5.) The Court heard this motion on January 25, 2024, and continued the motion to afford Plaintiff a final opportunity to serve responses. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated January 25, 2024.) Plaintiff failed to do so. (See Declaration of Michael B. Seuylemezian, dated March 1, 2024.) Therefore, the Court grants the motion and deems all matters admitted in the RFAs to have been admitted. The Court declines to impose a monetary sanction per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(e).

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion is granted. Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted all matters specified in the Requests for Admission.

2. The Court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

3. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

Order #2 of 3

Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Plaintiff Genesis Pink (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented party, filed this action against 5335 W Adams LA LLC and a series of employees (collectively, “Defendants”) asserting causes of action stemming from her tenancy at the premises located at 5335 West Adams Boulevard in Los Angeles, California (the “premises”). Plaintiff alleges as follows:

This is an action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, failure to meet contractual obligations and the landslide of issues that manifested due to the noise pollution caused by the residents who lived above my dwelling not being addressed nor investigated properly. (First Amended Complaint, p. 2.) Plaintiff moved into the premises on July 25, 2022. (Id., p. 3.) While moving into her unit, Plaintiff “heard some odd noises that were so crisp, it was like someone was in [the] apartment walls, but [she] couldn’t identify the source.” (Id., p. 3, ¶ 1.) Three days later, Plaintiff sent a text to the assistant manager to complaint. (Id., p. 3, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff experienced “strange noises” that were “so weird and random.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff heard “stomping back and forth and throughout the night.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff and a credible witness heard “intentional disturbing noises” that constituted a “nuisance.” (Id., p. 5, ¶ 5.) These noises included “screeches” that were “loud and crisp.” (Ibid.) In response, the manager said that “she would speak to the tenant above [Plaintiff].” (Id., p. 7, ¶ 6.) Afterwards, “the noises intensified.” (Id., p. 7, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff continued to complain, and the staff “never came to investigate” the complaints, which included a complaint about smoking, a breach of the lease. (Id., p. 8, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff took steps “to reduce noise in [her] unit by installing noise reduction sound boards on [the] walls,” to no avail, because the noise continued, disrupting Plaintiff’s sleep. (Id., p. 9, ¶ 9.) After two months of sending complaints, Plaintiff consulted with an attorney. (Id., p. 10, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff then withheld her rent, and she was evicted. (Id., p. 11, ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiff characterizes this eviction as “wrongful.” (Id., p. 5, ¶ 5.)

Defendants demur to every cause of action. As an initial matter, it appears that Plaintiff was evicted pursuant to an unlawful detainer action, which may have preclusive effect under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. But the Court need not reach that issue. Simply, Plaintiff’s allegations in the first amended complaint do not support her causes of action. The noise is attributable to Plaintiff’s neighbors. Even assuming the noise distributed Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants were responsible for causing the issue. Finally, Plaintiff concedes in her first amended complaint that she stopped paying the rent, so there is no basis to find that any eviction was unlawful (even assuming this issue was not resolved by the unlawful detainer case). Other causes of action do not apply to the facts alleged by Plaintiff.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Court sustains Plaintiff’s demurrer. The motion to strike is taken off-calendar as moot.

2. The Court issues an Order to Show Cause why the Court should grant Plaintiff leave to amend. The OSC hearing shall be held on March 29, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. at the following location:

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 North Hill Street

Department #39 (Goorvitch, J.)

Los Angeles, California 90012

The parties may appear remotely or in-person. Plaintiff shall file a proposed second amended complaint and/or a brief explaining why an amendment would be successful on or before March 20, 2024. The proposed second amended complaint shall be served on Defendant’s counsel via email or overnight delivery. Defendant’s counsel may file a response on or before March 26, 2024. The Court provides notice: If Plaintiff does not demonstrate that an amendment would be successful, either by filing a proposed second amended complaint or by filing a brief articulating sufficient facts that would constitute viable causes of action, absent good cause, the Court will deny leave to amend and dismiss this case with prejudice.

3. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

Order #3 of 3

Order to Show Cause re: Terminating Sanctions

On January 25, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”) and incorporates its order by reference. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated January 25, 2024.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to the FROG, without objections, on or before March 1, 2024, and imposed monetary sanctions. Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration stating that Plaintiff has failed to do so. (See Declaration of Michael B. Seuylemezian, dated March 1, 2024.)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court issues an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not impose a terminating sanction and dismiss this case with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d)(3) based upon Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with her discovery obligations. The OSC hearing shall be held on March 29, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. at the following location:

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 North Hill Street

Department #39 (Goorvitch, J.)

Los Angeles, California 90012

The parties may appear remotely or in-person. Plaintiff may file a response to this OSC or serve verified responses to the FROG, without objections, on or before March 20, 2024. Defendant’s counsel may file a response (including a declaration stating whether Plaintiff served verified responses, without objections, on or before March 20, 2024). Defendant’s response shall be filed on or before March 26, 2024.

The Court provides notice: If Plaintiff does not serve verified responses to the FROG, without objections, on or before March 20, 2024, or articulate good cause for her failure to do so, the Court will impose a terminating sanction and dismiss this case with prejudice.

The Court’s clerk shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.