Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 22CHCV00232, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00232, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00232 Hearing Date: July 11, 2023 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 7-11-23 c/f 5-18-23

Case #22CHCV00232

Trial Date: 1-22-24

FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Thaddeus Drapala

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Las Ventanas Homeowners Association

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Thaddeus and Marilyn Drapala, et al. own a home located at 25841 McBean Parkway, number 6. The property is located within a community identified as Las Ventanas, with a governing board, Las Ventanas Homeowners Association (HOA). Plaintiffs admittedly purchased the property as an investment/income generating unit, and intended to lease the unit to third party Melissa Thai. Upon the tenant moving into the premises, a “yellow/brain stain” was observed on the ceiling in a room. The tenant also heard noises of wildlife on the roof and attic, which was later determined a raccoon infestation.

According to Plaintiffs, the HOA refused to assist with blocking the air vents utilized by the raccoon(s) for ingress and egress to the premises. The infestation later lead to the discovery of contaminated and damaged insulation in the home caused by carcasses, urine and feces, which required restoration work. The restoration work led to the discovery of a roof leak as well, occurring during the rainy season. The water intrusion led to mold development. Plaintiff alleges the HOA also refused to cooperate with the roof repairs, which led to delays in the interior restoration work.

On April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for Negligence, Breach of Written Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Restitution, and Nuisance. The HOA and individual defendants answered the complaint on August 24, 2022.

RULING: Moot.

Plaintiff, Thaddeus Drapala moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) served on defendant James Mostyn.

Plaintiff represents service of Defendant on November 23, 2022. [Declaration of Nicole Clancy, ¶ 3, Ex. A.] According to Plaintiff, at the time of the filing of the motion, no responses were received, even after an extension and meet and confer efforts. [Id., ¶¶ 4-6, Ex. B.] Defendant in opposition contends Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer, and requests the court refrain from sanctions. Defendant maintains responses without objections were served on June 1, 2023.

"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 resopnses 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.)

Plaintiff properly filed the instant motion. Plaintiff was under no obligation to meet and confer or even offer an extension before filing the instant motion.

It remains undisputed that Defendant served responses—after the filing of the instant motion. Because responses were served, the court declares the motion moot and therefore denies the motion. Nevertheless, because responses were only served after the filing of the motion, the court adheres to a policy of imposing sanctions. Joint and several sanctions in the amount of $250 against responding defendant Las Ventanas Homeowners Association and counsel of record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) The sanctions against each and every individual party, as awarded in the concurrent individual motions, and potential future motions, are cumulative. Payable within 30 days.

Motions to compel responses and deem admissions admitted set for July 18 and 26, 2023, respectively. Trial remains set for January 22, 2024.

Defendant to provide notice.

Dept. F-49

Date: 7-11-23 c/f 5-18-23

Case #22CHCV00232

Trial Date: 1-22-24

FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Thaddeus Drapala

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, James Mostyn

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

SUMMARY OF ACTION

RULING: Moot.

Plaintiff, Thaddeus Drapala moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) served on defendant James Mostyn.

(Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

Plaintiff properly filed the instant motion. Plaintiff was under no obligation to meet and confer or even offer an extension before filing the instant motion.

It remains undisputed that Defendant served responses—after the filing of the instant motion. Because responses were served, the court declares the motion moot and therefore denies the motion. Nevertheless, because responses were only served after the filing of the motion, the court adheres to a policy of imposing sanctions. Joint and several sanctions in the amount of $250 against responding defendant James Mostyn and counsel of record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) The sanctions against each and every individual party, as awarded in the concurrent individual motions, and potential future motions, are cumulative. Payable within 30 days.

Motions to compel responses and deem admissions admitted set for July 18 and 26, 2023, respectively. Trial remains set for January 22, 2024.

Defendant to provide notice.

Dept.
F-49

Date:
7-11-23 c/f 5-18-23

Case
#22CHCV00232

Trial
Date: 1-22-24

FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff, Thaddeus Drapala

RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant, Suzanne Kelley

RELIEF
REQUESTED

Motion
to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

SUMMARY
OF ACTION

Plaintiffs
Thaddeus and Marilyn Drapala, et al. own a home located at 25841 McBean
Parkway, number 6. The property is located within a community identified as Las
Ventanas, with a governing board, Las Ventanas Homeowners Association (HOA).
Plaintiffs admittedly purchased the property as an investment/income generating
unit, and intended to lease the unit to third party Melissa Thai. Upon the
tenant moving into the premises, a “yellow/brain stain” was observed on the
ceiling in a room. The tenant also heard noises of wildlife on the roof and
attic, which was later determined a raccoon infestation.

According
to Plaintiffs, the HOA refused to assist with blocking the air vents utilized
by the raccoon(s) for ingress and egress to the premises. The infestation later
lead to the discovery of contaminated and damaged insulation in the home caused
by carcasses, urine and feces, which required restoration work. The restoration
work led to the discovery of a roof leak as well, occurring during the rainy
season. The water intrusion led to mold development. Plaintiff alleges the HOA
also refused to cooperate with the roof repairs, which led to delays in the
interior restoration work.

On
April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for Negligence, Breach of Written
Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Restitution, and Nuisance. The HOA and individual defendants
answered the complaint on August 24, 2022.

RULING: Moot.

Plaintiff,
Thaddeus Drapala moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (set one)
served on defendant Suzanne Kelley.

Plaintiff represents service of Defendant on November 23,
2022. [Declaration of Nicole Clancy, ¶ 3, Ex. A.] According to Plaintiff, at
the time of the filing of the motion, no responses were received, even after an
extension and meet and confer efforts. [Id., ¶¶ 4-6, Ex. B.] Defendant in
opposition contends Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer, and
requests the court refrain from sanctions. Defendant maintains responses
without objections were served on June 1, 2023.

"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 resopnses 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.)

Plaintiff properly filed the instant motion. Plaintiff was
under no obligation to meet and confer or even offer an extension before filing
the instant motion.

It remains undisputed that Defendant served responses—after
the filing of the instant motion. Because responses were served, the court
declares the motion moot and therefore denies the motion. Nevertheless, because
responses were only served after the filing of the motion, the court adheres to
a policy of imposing sanctions. Joint and several sanctions in the amount of
$250 against responding defendant Suzanne Kelley and counsel of record. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) The sanctions against each and every
individual party, as awarded in the concurrent individual motions, and
potential future motions, are cumulative. Payable within 30 days.

Motions to compel responses and deem admissions admitted set
for July 18 and 26, 2023, respectively. Trial remains set for January 22, 2024.

Defendant to provide notice.