Judge Virginia Keeny, Case Number: 20STCV34421, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20STCV34421, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34421 Hearing Date: January 31, 2025 Dept: 45

SHAILA MANTRI, et al. v. JOAN SCHULTZ INSURANCE AGENCY, ET AL.

MOTION TO COMPEL THE INSPECTION DEMAND

Date of Hearing: January 31, 2025 Trial Date: March 3, 2025

Department: 45 Case No.: 20STCV34421

Moving Party: Defendants Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Policy Number HGB0140086 and Washington & Finnegan, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Shaila Mantri and Subhashi Mantri

BACKGROUND

Shaila Mantri and Subhash Mantri (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on September 9, 2020 against defendants Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy Number HGB0140086 (or “Lloyd’s”); Joan Allyn Schultz dba Joan Schultz Insurance Agency (erroneously sued as two separate entities); and Washington & Finnegan, Inc. (“WF”), alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligence; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Professional Negligence; and (6) Fraud.

The Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiffs’ home was burglarized on November 30, 2019. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs submitted a claim to their insurance carrier, Lloyd’s. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Instead of investigating, adjusting, and paying the claim in a timely and reasonable manner, Lloyd’s unreasonably and in bad faith disputed the veracity and extent of the claim, ignored reliable documents that support the claim, and has thus far paid Plaintiffs nothing. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Further, Plaintiffs learned that their insurance broker for their insurance policy, Joan Schultz Insurance Agency, negligently and fraudulently obtained woefully inadequate insurance coverage for Plaintiffs’ personal property. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Schultz negligently and fraudulently represented to Plaintiffs that they could only obtain personal property coverage with a limit of $300,000. (Id. at ¶ 2.)

The motion now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Comply with Defendants’ First Amended Demand for Inspection of Subject Premises and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,710.00 Against Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on January 17, 2025. Defendants filed a Reply on January 24, 2025.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendants Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy Number Hgb0140086 and Washington & Finnegan, Inc.’s Motion to Comepl Plaintiffs to Comply with Defendants’ First Amended Demand for Inspection of Subject Premises is CONTINUED to allow Plaintiffs to address the conflicting sworn testimony. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a supplemental declaration addressing what the December 14, 2020 inspection involved.

Defendants Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy Number Hgb0140086 and Washington & Finnegan, Inc.’s Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,710.00 Against Plaintiffs is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may obtain discovery by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, of control of any other party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a).) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to photograph, test, or sample any tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (c).) A party may demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to enter onto any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (d).)

ANALYSIS

Defendants Those Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy Number Hgb0140086 and Washington & Finnegan, Inc. move for an order compelling Plaintiffs to comply with their First Amended Demand for Inspection of Subject Premise, which includes two requests. The first asks Plaintiff to produce for inspection:

That certain real property located at 20030 Hawks Hill Road, Chatsworth, CA 91311 including any and all dwellings, and structures on the real property, in addition to the real property Please note that this inspection demand includes not only the physical inspection of the property, but such non-destructive testing as may otherwise be required. It further includes the complete photographing of the property by still photos in addition to videotape or other film recording and reproduction. [Picker Decl., Ex. B [Inspection Demand, p. 2, lines 17-22].

(Motion, p. 7.)

The second demand asked Plaintiffs to produce for inspection ‘[a]ny and all items of personal property, e.g., handbags, purses, jewelry, that were recovered after the burglary that is the subject of this lawsuit.’ Picker Decl., Ex. B [Inspection Demand, p. 2, lines 26-27]. (Id.)

Moving defendants argue that they have an absolute right to conduct an inspection during discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. (Id. at p. 9.) Moving defendants performed inspections during the investigation of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim; however, the facts and circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs’ causes of action cannot be conflated with discovery requests. Further moving defendants are entitled to inspect the recovered personal property to determine if they are genuine. (Id.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny the motion, arguing that they have complied with section 2031.010, subdivisions (c) and (d) when they permitted moving defendants to enter into their home and conduct the inspection of the subject property and the personal property therein. Specifically, on December 6, 2019, Justin Swanson, on behalf of moving defendants, conducted an inspection of the subject property and damaged personal property. (Mantri Decl., ¶ 5.) The inspection included taking photographs and documenting the aftermath of the burglary event. (Id.) On January 21, 2020, moving defendants’ general contractor and adjuster conducted an inspection of the subject property and damaged personal property. (Id. at ¶ 6.) On August 18, 2020, an inspection of the recovered personal property was conducted at the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department where moving defendants’ expert was present and able to photograph and inventory the recovered items. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on September 9, 2020. In December 2020, moving defendants requested an inspection of the subject property. (Jacobson Decl., ¶ 2.) On December 14, 2020, moving defendants’ expert conducted an inspection of the subject property, the damaged personal property and recovered personal property from the Sheriff’s department. (Mantri Decl., ¶ 8.) In July 2024 moving defendants served an amended notice for an inspection, which Plaintiffs objected to.

In reply, moving defendants contend the inspections referred to in Plaintiffs’ opposition occurred during the investigation of their insurance claim, and there have been no prior discovery demands to inspect either Plaintiffs’ home or personal property. The last inspection that occurred on December 14, 2020 was a partial inspection that involved the inspection of Plaintiffs’ personal property only. (Supp. Picker Decl., Ex. 1-3.)

Here, moving defendants conducted an inspection of Plaintiffs’ real and personal property on four occasions with the most recent being the December 14, 2020 inspection, which is the only inspection that occurred after Plaintiffs filed their Complaint. Now moving defendants request an order compelling Plaintiffs to comply with their First Amended Demand for Inspection of Subject Premises. The Court is inclined to grant the motion as there have been no prior discovery requests seeking to inspect Plaintiffs’ home or personal property. However, there is conflicting sworn testimony, particularly regarding the December 14, 2020 inspection. On one side, Plaintiff Shaila Mantri declares that Lloyd’s conducted an inspection of her home, damaged personal property, and recovered personal property that she received from the Sheriff’s department. (Mantri Decl., ¶ 8.) On the other side, counsel for moving defendants contends the December 14, 2020 inspection did not include Plaintiffs’ dwelling based on email correspondence between the parties leading up to the inspection. (Supp. Picker Decl., Ex. 1-3.) Given the conflicting sworn testimony, the Court will inquire at the hearing about what the December 14, 2020 inspection involved. If the inspection did not include Plaintiffs’ home, then the Court will grant the motion limited to the real property only.

As to monetary sanctions, the Court is inclined to deny moving defendants’ request as the Court finds Plaintiffs were substantially justified in opposing the motion.

CONCLUSION