Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV37077, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Leah Racheal Evans, Bailey Amanda Ramirez, Kai Michael Ramirez, Jax Phillip Ramirez, Lyla Amari Ramirez, Tommy Lee Jerricks, Loretta Frankie Angela Hernandez, Tremaine Lennard Jerricks, and Priince’Trevvion Lekobe Jerricks filed this habitability action against Defendants 38665 11th Street East LLC and Excel Residential Services Inc.

On June 3, 2024, Plaintiffs jointly served Requests for Admission, Set One on Defendants. Requests for Admission, Set One includes 482 RFAs for each Defendant. Plaintiffs also served Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, which requests additional information for each RFA response that is not an unqualified admission.

On August 5, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for protective order, seeking an order that they need not answer Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One and the corresponding Requests for Admission, Set One.

Two Defendants filed one motion when each Defendant was separately served with their own set of Request for Admissions. Each Defendant should have filed its own separate motion, with separate filing fees and hearing reservations. Despite being scheduled as only one motion and one hearing, the total substance is that of two motions. This unfairly allows Defendants to take only one hearing reservation (instead of two), resulting in an inaccurate projection and accounting of the Court’s workload and inconvenience for both the court and other litigants. Defendants are ordered not to do this again and are warned that continued action of this type may result in monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

For any future discovery motions, the parties must file a separate motion for each discovery request and party, or the Court may strike or deny the motions for being improperly filed.

A party may propound more than 35 RFAs if the greater number is warranted by the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.030, 2033.040, subd. (a).) Any party who has propounded more than 35 RFAs to any other party must attach to each set of those RFAs a declaration stating why the number of requests is warranted and that none of the questions are being propounded for an improper purpose. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.040, 2033.050.) The responding party may move for a protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.090.) “If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of requests for admission is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.040, subd. (b).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel attached a declaration to Requests for Admission, Set One, stating: “This number of Requests for Admission is warranted under Section 2033.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure because of the size and complexity of the case and the variety of theories Plaintiffs are pursuing. There are nine (9) Plaintiffs in this action, with five (5) causes of action, against each of the two (2) Defendants. Each Defendant has alleged thirty-eight (38) distinct affirmative defenses. . . . There is no doubt that it will be a long trial. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission are aimed at narrowing the issues for trial, and, for whatever issues are denied improperly, ensuring that Plaintiffs do not have to incur the costs of any improperly denied admissions. . . . To illustrate, in habitability cases, a central issue is notice. A large part of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission center around notice about substandard conditions, and when each Defendant acknowledges it was received. Given that notice is a central issue in the case, it is proper for each Defendant to admit or deny whether they received notice from the relevant government agencies, or whether each Plaintiff complained about each alleged substandard condition, and to break it down by year so the date of the acknowledged complaint is established as undisputed. . . . Further, Plaintiffs—low-income families—are not required bear the burden of costs of proof, and are entitled to narrow the issues or, if the issues are denied and later proven, collect from each Defendant costs of proof for improperly denied Requests for Admission.” (Motion, Exs. A-B, Anand Decl. ¶¶ 7-11.) With the opposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel further declares that to avoid objections about the RFAs being compound, Plaintiffs “are required to list in their requests whether each Defendant admits each condition existed, by year, whether Defendant admits receiving notice of the condition, by year, and whether Defendant admits or denies whether Defendant abated each condition in a permitted manner, again by its applicable time period.” (Opposition at p. 10.)

Defendants argue that the 482 RFAs are burdensome, harassing, and overbroad. RFAs should “relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.)

In this habitability action, the Plaintiffs’ allegations are virtually identical. Plaintiffs allege that their two units have been uninhabitable during their tenancies, with the same defects in both units. (E.g., Complaint ¶¶ 3-4, 26.) This action involves only two units in a building with thirty-six units, yet many RFAs refer to the “SUBJECT PROPERTY” of the entire building. (Motion at pp. 4, 6-7.) “SUBJECT PROPERTY” is defined as “the premises identified in Plaintiffs’ complaint as the geographic location of the events and occurrences which are the subject of Plaintiffs’ complaint, the apartment complex located at 38665 11th St., Palmdale, CA 93550, including the apartment Units within.” Some RFAs refer to ownership of different properties. (Motion at p. 7 [RFA Nos. 474-481].) Other RFAs ask Defendants to admit that they failed to do something, followed by an identical request that adds only “without good cause.” (See, e.g., Motion, Exs. A-B [RFA Nos. 134-135, 138-139, 142-143].)

The number of RFAs is even more burdensome when accompanied by Form Interrogatory No. 17.1’s request for all additional information about each denial.

Plaintiffs’ counsel also argues that the 482 RFAs equate to fewer than 54 RFAs for each of the nine Plaintiffs. (Opposition at p. 13.) But propounding them in this manner means that each of the nine Plaintiffs receive the benefit of 482 different RFAs. Whether there is one Plaintiff or nine, Plaintiffs must show good cause for the 482 requests.

This is not a particularly complex case. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of justifying the number of RFAs in this run-of-the-mill habitability action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.040, subd. (b); see Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080, subd. (b)(2).)

The motion for protective order is GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiffs serving new and more tailored sets of Requests for Admission that may include some of the same RFAs.

Defendants need not answer Requests for Admission, Set One and the corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080, subds. (b)(1)-(2).)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court