Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20CHCV00303, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00303    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 3-23-23 (TBH 3-29-23)

Case # 20CHCV00303

Trial Date: 5-1-23 c/f 3-27-23

INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants, Sayra Alvarado, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Walter Martin

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (set two)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff Walter Martin, trustee for the Gesner L. Martin living trust, entered into a month-to-month lease agreement for certain premises with Defendants Sayra Alvarado, Norma Saleido, and Jonathan Banuelos. Defendants took possession of the premises on the same date. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the lese by keeping more than one pet on the premises without prior written approval. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants failed to perform agreed upon maintenance. Plaintiff cancelled the lease, but Defendants continue to occupy the premises without paying rent since May 2019.

On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Lease Contract. Defendant answered the complaint on June 24, 2020, and filed a cross-complaint against Martin for Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Implied Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment, Negligence, Constructive Eviction, Nuisance, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Retaliatory Acts, and Trespass. On August 7, 2020, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants answered the cross-complaint.

RULING: Denied.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants, Sayra Alvarado, et al. move to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (set two) from Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Martin. Moving parties represents  service on May 11, 2022, and no responses have been received. [Declaration of Zhana Aivazi, ¶ 4, Ex. A.] The exhibit itself shows a copy of Request for Admission without any attached proof of service. [Id.] The motion itself also cites to more than one source of authority for relief, including Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subd. (b) [2:12-14], which addresses admissions, notwithstanding the ostensible purpose of special interrogatories.

Responding party represents service of responses, though the represented exhibits only shows requests for admissions and request for production of documents, with no actual copy of the ostensibly identified subject matter of the motion—special interrogatories (set two).  Defendants/Cross-Complainants contends the interrogatories were properly served, and cites to the e-mail exchange as evidence.

The court cannot sort out the factual dispute of the parties, and instead denies the motion due to insufficient proof of service of the actual operative discovery. The opposition lack of direct responsiveness also prevents the court from otherwise determining the status of the parties discovery disputes.

Any and all requests for sanctions are denied. Multiple discovery motions on calendar for April 5, 2023. Trial remains set for May 1, 2023.

Moving Parties to give notice.