Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00734, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00734    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49 

Date: 4-18-23

Case # 22CHCV00734  

Trial Date: Not Set

ADMISSIONS, PRODUCTION, INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Ashley Anderson, pro per

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Nasch Properties, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Motion to Strike the Demurrer and Motion to Strike of Defendants Nasch Properties and Charly Taylor

SUMMARY OF ACTION 

Plaintiffs Michael Perry and Ashley Anderson reside in an apartment building owned and/or managed by Defendant Nasch Properties, LLC. The assigned property manager on the premises is identified as defendant Charly Taylor.

On May 7, 2022, Anderson alleges a co-tenant in the building, defendant Stanley Nathanson, committed a sexual assault and attempted within the apartment building laundry room common area. Plaintiffs submitted a complaint with property manager Taylor, but allege defendant landlords refused to conduct any independent investigation and/or seek eviction of Nathanson. Instead, on August 17, 2022, Plaintiffs were served with a three day notice to quit. Plaintiffs additionally allege the interruption of “essential services,” such as hot water.

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiffs, in pro per, filed their complaint for “stay of unlawful detainer, restitution, civil penalties, preliminary and permanent injunction, and other equitable relief Business & Professions Code [section] 17200.” The 18 individual causes of action are listed as Sexual Harassment in Violation of California Civil Code section 51.9; Sexual Assault and Harassment … in Violation of California Civil Code section 51.9; Color, Race and Sex-Based Discrimination Based on Status as Sexual Assault Victim; Violation of RALPH Act California Civil Code section 51.7; Interference with Exercise of Civil Rights in Violation of Bane Act, California Civil Code section 52.1, Retaliation; Discrimination prohibited by the 14^th Amendment; Breach of Duty to Protect Tenants from Foreseeable Crimes; Strict Liability under Special Relationship Doctrine; Gender Violence; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligence and Failure to Disclose Tenants Criminal Propensities; Negligent Refusal of Landlord to Investigate and Screen Prospective Tenants; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Unfair Competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200; Defamation; Breach of Contract; and, Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

On October 24, 2022, the court denied the ex parte application to stay the pending unlawful detainer case in Department 44. The court also denied the ex parte order for a restraining order.

On January 26, 2023, the court granted the motion to dismiss Michel Perry from the lawsuit, due to the failure to obtain leave to file the subject complaint as a designated vexatious litigant. The court also sustained the demurrer of Nasch Properties, LLC with 30 days leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on the order dismissing Perry on February 8, 2023.

The first amended complaint was late filed on March 20, 2023.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiff Ashlee Anderson, pro per, moves to compel responses to discovery, including Request for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and to deem requests for admissions admitted as to defendants Nasch Properties, LLC and Chary Taylor. Plaintiff also moves to strike document and media production, with a follow-up request for entry of a default judgment. Plaintiff filed both a motion and amended motion, which consist of 262 and 269 pages of authorities, declarations and exhibits. The motion and amended motion, both filed on the January 17, 2023, were filed by both Anderson and dismissed party Perry. Because Perry was dismissed from the action following the filing of the motion and amended motion on January 26, 2023, the court now only proceeds with Anderson. The amended motion relies, at least in part, on the accusation that Defense counsel conspired and colluded with the United States Postal Service to delay timely delivery of the discovery responses, but Plaintiff ultimately denies receipt of some/any responses.

Defendants in opposition contend all discovery was timely served via electronic and USPS mail. Defendants request sanctions in opposition.

On April 1, 2023, Anderson and Perry, after the dismissal of Perry, separately filed FIVE (5) copies of the declaration of Anderson reiterating the accusations of the conspiracy and collusion. The court cannot determine if the declarations constitute an untimely supplement to the motion or an early reply. Given the lack of any other document(s) identified as a reply prior to the tentative ruling publication cutoff, the court considers the subsequent filings as a reply.

The parties agree the subject discovery was served on December 9, 2022 by mail service. Plaintiff acknowledges the five additional days to respond to mail served discovery, but incorrectly contends the responses were due on January 10, 2023. Even including the date of service—35 days from December 9, 2022 is January 13, 2023. Because the date of service is not included in calculating a service date however, the date would roll over to Saturday January 14. Weekends are not included, and Monday January 16 was the Martin Luther King Holiday, thereby extending the response date to January 17, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc., § 12, et seq.)

Regardless, Defendants present valid proof of service of responses on January 13, 2023 by USPS mail service and e-mail. [Declaration of Iman, Ex. D.] The motion is therefore denied on grounds of valid service of responses.

The court declines to consider the arguments regarding conspiracy and collusion for the deprivation of responses. The proofs of service sufficiently establish service, and quintupling down on accusations insufficiently undermines any claim of invalid service.

The court also denies any request to “strike” the prior discovery. Nothing in the motion supports the finding for an effective terminating sanction, thereby entitling Plaintiff Anderson to a default.

The motion is therefore DENIED in its entirety. The court imposes mandatory sanctions against Anderson in the amount of $500 for bringing the unmeritorious motion, including the continued excessive and voluminous filing practices. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Sanctions payable within 30 days.

While the court accepts the pre-dismissal filing of the subject motion by Perry, the continued designation of Perry as a party on any and all items following the January 26, 2023 order may constitute a violation of the court order, thereby subjecting Perry to a contempt hearing. The court previously noted this type of continuing behavior may be subject to contempt and therefore once again reminds Perry of the standing order. The court may sua sponte set a contempt hearing should another violation occur.

The court also notes that continued excessive law and motion filing, including both voluminous motions and redundant copies of said items can be used as support for a motion to separately deem Plaintiff Anderson a vexatious litigant. Defendants may choose to bring such a motion in Department 1 if they deem it warranted.

Motion for attorney fees against former defendant Perry set for May 5, 2023, respectively.

Defendant to give notice to all parties.