Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV24512, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24512    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept.
68

Date:
3-21-24

Case
#: 22STCV24512

Trial
Date: Not Set

FURTHER INTERROGATORIES

MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff, Marc Bensemhoun

RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant, ROHCS Property Management Co.

RELIEF
REQUESTED

Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

SUMMARY
OF ACTION

Plaintiff
Marc Benshemhoun leased certain premises owned and/or managed by defendants
ROHCS Property Management Co., Aryeh Robbins, Fred Schor, Josh Gottlieb, Tzvi
Haber, and 330 North Genesee Avenue LLC, and located at 332.5 Genesee Ave., Los
Angeles beginning on May 15, 2014. Beginning in September 2017, Plaintiff
discovered mold on the premises, and notified defendants. No remediation was
undertaken.

On
February 18, 2022, Defendants filed an unlawful detainer action against
Plaintiff, which was dismissed. On May 3, 2022, Defendants served a Three Day
Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. A secont Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was
served on May 16, 2022.

On
July 29, 2022, plaintiff Marc Bensemhoun filed a complaint for Breach of
Warranty of Habitability (Violation of Civil Code § 1941.1), Breach of Warranty
of Habitability (Health & Safety Code § 17920.3), Breach of Warranty of
Habitability (Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4), Negligence - Premises
Liability, Nuisance, Battery, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress,  Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of
Quiet Enjoyment, Unfair Business Practices (Violation of Business and
Professions Code §17200, et. seq.), Fraudulent Concealment, Moratorium,
Ordinance Nos.186585 and 186606, Violation of Los Angeles Tenant Anti
Harassment Ordinance, Los Angeles Tenant Anti Harassment Ordinance Section
45.33, and Retaliation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.35).

On November 15, 2023, the action was transferred from the
personal injury hub court to Department 55. Plaintiff filed a 170.6 challenge
thereby leading to reassignment to Department 36. All hearings were vacated in
a series of orders from both Departments 55 and 36. On December 11, 2023,
Plaintiff filed a SECOND 170.6, which was accepted, and the case was
transferred to Department 68. 

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Marc Bensemhoun moves to compel further responses
to form interrogatories (set one), numbers 4.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 12.4, 12.7 and 17.1.
Defendant ROHCS Property Management Co. in opposition maintains the motion is
moot as the parties settled the instant action via a stipulated unlawful
detainer judgment. [Declaration of Benjamin Kiss, Ex. A.] ROHCS additionally contends
item 4.1 improperly seeks insurance information, and submits a separate
statement in opposition reiterating the necessity of the subject discovery
given the settlement. Plaintiff in reply denies any settlement agreement on the
instant action; the agreement only applies to the separate unlawful detainer
action. Plaintiff also notes the failure to produce documents, and references
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. [Reply, 4:15-17.]

The request was served on July 9, 2023; Responses were
served on August 24, 2023. [Declaration of Michael Yadegari.] The responses
consist of a relevance objection to number 4.1, a partial response with “not
applicable” follow-up on 7.1, incorporation of the response to 7.1, a partial
response on 12.4 and 12.7, and an admitted non-response to number 17.1.

The motion lacks any separate statement, and otherwise only
offers a generalized statement regarding the lack of a good faith effort to
produce the information. (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1345(a)(3), (c), (d).) The
court may proceed without a separate statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310,
subd. (b)(3).)

The instant motion was filed on January 23, 2024, which is
more than 45 days from the August 24, 2023, date of service. The motion lacks
any proof of extension of the time to file the instant motion. The motion is
therefore facially untimely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) Nevertheless,
the court docket shows the original motion was filed on October 6, 2023, which
is 43 days after service of the responses. On November 15, 2023, the action was
transferred from the personal injury hub court to Department 55. Plaintiff
filed a 170.6 challenge thereby leading to reassignment to Department 36. All
hearings were vacated in a series of orders from both Departments 55 and 36. On
December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a SECOND 170.6, which was accepted, and the
case was transferred to Department 68.

The court finds the circumstances leading to the vacating of
the dates in no way precludes the renewal of the subject motion, and therefore
preserves the original, timely filed date. The court therefore considers the
merits.

The court cannot definitively determine the impacts of the
settlement of the unlawful detainer on the instant discovery. Plaintiff denies
any impacts in reply. The court declines to deny the motion on this basis.

The court however declines to otherwise address each every
of the identified items for a determination of the sufficiency of the responses
simply based on the conclusive argument regarding insufficient responses. Notwithstanding
the limited articulated support, the court finds the reliance on the settlement
agreement as a bar to responding to the current, remaining active case
constitutes a facially invalid response. The relevance objection on one item,
and the incomplete and non-responses to the remainder of the items, also fails
to justify the responses. The court otherwise decline to consider objections to
Judicial Council drafted items on information at issue.

The court elects to order further responses. Defendant to
serve revised responses within 30 days of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.220-2030.240.)
AGAIN, continued multiple motions to compel further responses prompted by
blanket repetitive ubiquitous objections thereby presenting voluminous amounts
of items before the court may result in the setting of an OSC re: Appointment
of Referee. The court strongly encourages the parties to meaningfully meet and
confer. The court does not conduct independent discovery conferences.

However, the Court declines to impose
sanctions, finding that both parties acted with substantial justification under
the totality of the circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a), (d).)

Case
Management Conference set for April 12, 2024.

Plaintiff
to give notice.