Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 22CHCV00146, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00146, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00146 Hearing Date: October 19, 2023 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-19-23

Case #22CHCV00146

Trial Date: 1-8-24 c/f 8-28-23 c/f 5-1-23

FURTHER DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, LGR Properties, LLC, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Michelle Terrell, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Michelle Terrell alleges a home purchased on September 30, 2021, from Defendants contained numerous construction defects. On March 3, and March 16, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint and first amended complaint for Violation of Building Standards, Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of Contract, and Breach of Express Warranty. Defendant LGR Properties, LLC and Ronald Kelly answered the first amended complaint on July 28, 2022.

RULING: Granted

Defendants LGR Properties, LLC and Ronald Kelly move to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, numbers 1-21. Defendant contends the supplemental responses remain incomplete. The motion was timely filed within 45 days of service of the disputed supplemental responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Plaintiff in pro per filed a late opposition to the motion on the same date moving defendants filed a notice of non-opposition.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 states in relevant part: “ (a) The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling ... (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item. ...”

Section 2031.220 continues: “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

Finally, section 2031.230 concludes for purposes of this motion: “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

The subject document requests essentially seek information regarding property transaction, insurance, alleged construction defect information, property damage, and the parties responsible—the fundamental claims at issue in the subject action. While Plaintiff apparently produced documents, Defendants remain entitled to code compliant responses regarding represented complete production. In other words, if Plaintiff produced all known documents, Plaintiff needs to state as much, with direction in the individual responses.

While Plaintiff represents service of new responses following the filing of the instant motion, the court cannot otherwise determine the content of the actual response. "Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (citation) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under [citation]." (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

Plaintiff’s insistence on the sufficiency of the responses otherwise fails to establish statutory compliance. A party appearing and prosecuting a case in pro per remains obligated to comply with all applicable rules, and will not be entitled to special exceptions by the court. (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.)

The motion is therefore granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1-2).) Plaintiff is ordered to provide code compliant responses in conformance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a)(1-2),2031.220, and 2031.230 within 30 days of this order. The motion is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(1).)

The court directs Plaintiff to the cited code section for guidance in hopes that Plaintiff finds a better understanding of the requirements in presenting the causation and damages elements of the claim to the court. “Trial judges must acknowledge that pro per litigants often do not have an attorney's level of knowledge about the legal system and are more prone to misunderstanding the court's requirements. When all parties are represented, the judge can depend on the adversary system to keep everyone on the straight and narrow. When one party is represented and the other is not, the lawyer, in his or her own client's interests, does not wish to educate the pro per. The judge should monitor to ensure the pro per is not inadvertently misled, either by the represented party or by the court. While attorneys and judges commonly speak (and often write) in legal shorthand, when a pro per is involved, special care should be used to make sure that verbal instructions given in court and written notices are clear and understandable by a layperson. This is the essence of equal and fair treatment, and it is not only important to serve the ends of justice, but to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.” (Gamet v. Blanchard, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1284.)

The court imposes sanctions of $250 against Plaintiff in pro per payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Moving parties remain entitled to compensation for some of the costs associated with this proper motion, even if Plaintiff contends harassment as an ulterior motive.

Motion for leave to amend the complaint on December 8, 2023. Trial remains set for January 8, 2024.

Defendants to provide notice.

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-19-23

Case #22CHCV00146

Trial Date: 1-8-24 c/f 8-28-23 c/f 5-1-23

FURTHER INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, LGR Properties, LLC, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Michelle Terrell, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

RULING: Granted

Defendant LGR Properties, LLC and Ronald Kelly move to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories numbers 4, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 43 and 46. Defendant contends the supplemental responses remain incomplete. The motion was timely filed within 45 days of service of the disputed supplemental responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Plaintiff in pro per filed a late opposition to the motion on the same date moving defendants filed a notice of non-opposition.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 states: “(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) 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.”

The subject interrogatories essentially seek information regarding alleged construction defects, omissions, property damage, and the parties responsible—the fundamental claims at issue in the subject action. Plaintiff’s limited factual responses insufficiently support the claims.

While Plaintiff represents service of new responses following the filing of the instant motion, the court cannot determine the content of the actual response. "Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case. In many cases involving untimely responses, the propounding party will take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions. If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section 2030.300 and either determine that further answers are required, or order the propounding party to “meet and confer” (§ 2030.300, subd. (b)) and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding party to file a motion under section 2030.300." (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

The motion is therefore granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).) Plaintiff is ordered to provide code compliant responses in conformance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 within 30 days of this order.

The court directs Plaintiff to the cited code section for guidance in hopes that Plaintiff finds a better understanding of the requirements in presenting the breach, causation and damages elements of the claim to the court. “Trial judges must acknowledge that pro per litigants often do not have an attorney's level of knowledge about the legal system and are more prone to misunderstanding the court's requirements. When all parties are represented, the judge can depend on the adversary system to keep everyone on the straight and narrow. When one party is represented and the other is not, the lawyer, in his or her own client's interests, does not wish to educate the pro per. The judge should monitor to ensure the pro per is not inadvertently misled, either by the represented party or by the court. While attorneys and judges commonly speak (and often write) in legal shorthand, when a pro per is involved, special care should be used to make sure that verbal instructions given in court and written notices are clear and understandable by a layperson. This is the essence of equal and fair treatment, and it is not only important to serve the ends of justice, but to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.” (Gamet v. Blanchard, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1284.)

The court imposes sanctions of $250 against Plaintiff in pro per payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) Moving parties remain entitled to compensation for some of the costs associated with this proper motion, even if Plaintiff contends harassment as an ulterior motive.

While electronic service is proper, the court also requests the mailing of hard copies to Plaintiff for any potential future discovery and/or law and motion.

The motion is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1).) Plaintiff is ordered to provide code compliant responses in conformance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 within 30 days of this order.

The court imposes sanctions of $250 against Plaintiff in pro per payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).) Failure to comply with this order may support a motion for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

Motion for leave to amend the complaint on December 8, 2023. Trial remains set for January 8, 2024.

Defendants to provide notice.

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-19-23

Case #22CHCV00146

Trial Date: 1-8-24 c/f 8-28-23 c/f 5-1-23

FURTHER INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, LGR Properties, LLC, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Michelle Terrell, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

RULING: Granted

Defendant LGR Properties, LLC and Ronald Kelly move to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories numbers 7.1, 7.2, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.7, 14.1, 50.1 and 50.2. Defendant contends the supplemental responses remain incomplete. The motion was timely filed within 45 days of service of the disputed supplemental responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Plaintiff in pro per filed a late opposition to the motion on the same date moving defendants filed a notice of non-opposition. Plaintiff contends Defendants refuse to accept the prior responses, and instead continue to “harass” Plaintiff with repeated requests for discovery and the instant motion. Plaintiff requests the court refrain from imposing sanctions as well.

The subject interrogatories essentially seek information regarding the property damage and the parties responsible—the fundamental claims at issue in the subject action. Plaintiff’s “not applicable,” “no,” or otherwise limited factual responses both insufficiently support the claims, but also potentially risks later preclusion for presentation of evidence at trial.

While electronic service is proper, the court also requests the mailing of hard copies to Plaintiff for any potential future discovery and/or law and motion.

Motion for leave to amend the complaint on December 8, 2023. Trial remains set for January 8, 2024.

Defendants to provide notice.