Judge Wesley L. Hsu, Case 22PSCV00516 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

1. Defendants Allen Ray Carter’s and Dianne C. Carter’s Motion to Strike the Fifth Cause of Action and Allegations of Punitive Damages from Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is DENIED as MOOT.

3. Defendant Allen Ray Carter’s Motion for Plaintiff Graciela Barbosa to Provide Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses to Allen Ray Carter’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $210.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

4. Defendant Allen Ray Carter’s Motion for Plaintiff Graciela Barbosa to Provide Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses to Allen Ray Carter’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $210.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

6. Defendant Allen Ray Carter’s Motion for Plaintiff Isaias Barbosa to Provide Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses to Allen Ray Carter’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $210.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

7. Defendant Allen Ray Carter’s Motion for Plaintiff Isaias Barbosa to Provide Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses to Allen Ray Carter’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $210.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

8. Defendant Allen Ray Carter’s Motion for Plaintiff Estate of Dora Barbosa to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses to Allen Ray Carter’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $210.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

9. Defendant Allen Ray Carter’s Motion for Plaintiff Estate of Dora Barbosa to Provide Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses to Allen Ray Carter’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $210.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

10. Defendant Allen Ray Carter’s Motion for Plaintiff Estate of Dora Barbosa to Provide Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to provide verified responses to Allen Ray Carter’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $210.00 and are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiffs Isaias Barbosa (“Isaias”), Graciela Barbosa (“Graciela”) and the Estate of Dora Barbosa (“Estate”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: Isaias and Graciela have been tenants at the property located at 4229 N. Cogswell Road in El Monte (“subject property”) since 1985. The subject property suffers from numerous habitability issues.

On December 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), asserting causes of action against Defendants David Wayne Carter, individually and as Trustee of the David Wayne Carter Revocable Trust Dated September 10, 2018, Allen Ray Carter and Dianne C. Carter, individually and as Co-Trustees of the Carter 1992 Revocable Living Trust, Rudy Carlos and Does 1-20 for:

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on Second Amended Complaint are set for May 1, 2023.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, “the court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” The grounds for a motion to strike must “appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Allen Ray Carter and Dianne C. Carter, individually and as Co-Trustees of the Carter 1992 Revocable Living Trust (“Moving Defendants”) move the court for an order striking out the following portions of Plaintiffs’ SAC:

1. Paragraph 18, lines 9 through 12 (i.e., “[n]otwithstanding Defendants’ express or

constructive knowledge of the illegal condition of the Rental and the Property, Defendants intentionally failed and intentionally refused to abate and remediate such defects on a timely basis. Defendants' conduct was intentional and designed to (i) extract rent from Plaintiffs in derogation of Plaintiffs' rights under applicable law, (ii) force Plaintiffs out of the Rental in violation of applicable law, and/or (iii) intimidate Plaintiffs into not asserting their rights under the law”);

2. Paragraph 18, lines 15 through 20 (i.e., “[a]t all relevant times, Defendants

accepted rent from Plaintiffs with full knowledge that Defendants had, at all times, failed to provide Plaintiffs with a habitable Rental that was in gross violation of applicable law. Defendants knew that the Rental were not fit for human occupation but made the conscious decision to subject Plaintiffs to the illegal and unacceptable living conditions present in the Rental solely for monetary gain and without regard to Plaintiffs' rights and status as lawful occupants of the Property”);

3. Paragraph 21, lines 6 through 11 (i.e., “[d]efendants conduct described above was

intentional, despicable and was initiated with malice and with the intent to knowingly take advantage of, oppress and injure Plaintiffs. Defendants were at all times aware that there was a high probability their intentional and/or grossly negligent failure to repair and maintain the Rental and the Property would injure Plaintiffs and cause them personal injury, emotional distress and property damage. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages”);

4. Paragraph 34, lines 16 through 18 (i.e., “[f]urther, Plaintiffs are informed and

believe, and thereupon allege, that Defendants' conduct was intentional, despicable, and was carried-out with the intent to oppress and injure Plaintiffs”);

5. Paragraph 34, lines 18 through 22 (i.e., “[i]ndeed, Defendants were fully aware of

the conditions at the Rental, that they interfered with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment (and violated a multitude of laws), yet failed to take any remedial or curative actions. To the contrary, after being repeatedly advised of such conditions (and requests for abatement), Defendants not only failed to cure, but actively threatened Plaintiffs with eviction should they continue to make such requests”);

6. Paragraph 34, lines 22 through 23 (i.e., “[a]ccordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an

7. The entire fifth cause of action, for Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4 (i.e.,

8. Paragraph 57, lines 23 through 26 (i.e., “[d]efendants’ actions were fraudulent,

malicious, and oppressive. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to and herein seeks punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants, in an amount according to proof at trial, to punish Defendants and deter Defendants and others from engaging in similar future conduct”);

10. Prayer 10, line 18 (i.e., “[f]or punitive and exemplary damages according to

11. Prayer 11, line 22 (i.e., “[f]or economic and non-economic damages according to

12. Prayer 12, lines 23 through 24 (i.e., “[f]or reasonable attorney's fees to the extent

13. Prayer 13, line 25 (i.e., “[f]or statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per

Moving Defendants argue that on November 22, 2022, the court sustained Moving Defendants’ demurrer to the fifth cause of action without leave to amend and granted Moving Defendants’ motion to strike allegations of punitive damages.

Plaintiffs, in turn, point out that the fifth cause of action is no longer asserted against Moving Defendants. (Forstrom Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs further acknowledge that “per the Court’s Order. . ., Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages from the Carter Defendants. In the meantime, however, Plaintiffs may still seek such damages against the ‘non-Carter Defendants’ as, again, they were not party to the demurrer and motion to strike.” (Id., ¶ 6.)

A response to interrogatories is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.

(a).) “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, . . . [t]he

party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Moving Defendants[1] move the court for an order compelling Graciela to serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set No. One. Moving Defendants additionally seek sanctions against Graciela and Graciela’s attorney Z. Dean Hakkak (“Hakkak”) of First Law Group in the amount of $1,810.00.

At the outset, the court notes that the subject discovery (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Johanna Boktor [“Boktor”]) was propounded by Defendant Allen Ray Carter (“Allen”) only; as such, the court deems that the following ruling does not apply to Defendant Dianna C. Carter (“Dianna”).

Boktor represents as follows: On October 5, 2022, the subject discovery was served. (Boktor Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Graciela’s responses were due November 4, 2022. (Id., ¶ 6.) On January 5, 2022, Boktor sent a meet and confer letter to Graciela’s counsel, giving Graciela until January 11, 2023 to provide responses. (Id., ¶ 7). No responses have been received as of the motion filing date. (Id., ¶ 8.)

The motion is granted. Graciela is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Allen’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Allen seeks sanctions against Graciela and her attorney in the amount of $1,810.00 [calculated as follows: 1 hours preparing discovery, plus 2 hours preparing motion, plus 2 hours drafting reply and attending hearing at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee].

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $210.00 (i.e., 0.5 hours at $300.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee). Sanctions are payable within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Moving Defendants[2] move the court for an order compelling Graciela to serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set No. One. Moving Defendants additionally seek sanctions against Graciela and Hakkak in the amount of $1,810.00.

Again, the court notes that the subject discovery (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Boktor was propounded by Allen only; as such, the court deems that the following ruling does not apply to Dianna.

The motion is granted. Graciela is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Allen’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

A response to a request for production of documents is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or

sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, . . . [t]he party making the demand may

move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who

unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection,

copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with

substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Moving Defendants[3] move the court for an order compelling Graciela to serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One. Moving Defendants additionally seek sanctions against Graciela and Hakkak in the amount of $1,810.00.

Again, the court notes that the subject discovery (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Boktor) was propounded by Allen only; as such, the court deems that the following ruling does not apply to Dianna.

The motion is granted. Graciela is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Allen’s Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Moving Defendants[4] move the court for an order compelling Isaias to serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set No. One. Moving Defendants additionally seek sanctions against Isaias and Hakkak in the amount of $1,810.00.

The motion is granted. Isaias is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Allen’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Allen seeks sanctions against Isaias and his attorney in the amount of $1,810.00 [calculated as follows: 1 hours preparing discovery, plus 2 hours preparing motion, plus 2 hours drafting reply and attending hearing at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee].

Moving Defendants[5] move the court for an order compelling Isaias to serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set No. One. Moving Defendants additionally seek sanctions against Isaias and Hakkak in the amount of $1,810.00.

The motion is granted. Isaias is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Allen’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Moving Defendants[6] move the court for an order compelling Isaias to serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One. Moving Defendants additionally seek sanctions against Isaias and Hakkak in the amount of $1,810.00.

The motion is granted. Isaias is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Allen’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Moving Defendants[7] move the court for an order compelling Estate to serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set No. One. Moving Defendants additionally seek sanctions against Estate and Hakkak in the amount of $1,810.00.

The motion is granted. Estate is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Allen’s Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

Allen seeks sanctions against Estate and its attorney in the amount of $1,810.00 [calculated as follows: 1 hours preparing discovery, plus 2 hours preparing motion, plus 2 hours drafting reply and attending hearing at $350.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee].

Moving Defendants[8] move the court for an order compelling Estate to serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set No. One. Moving Defendants additionally seek sanctions against Estate and Hakkak in the amount of $1,810.00.

The motion is granted. Estate is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Allen’s Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

10. Motion to Compel Re: Requests for Production Re: Estate of Dora Barbosa

Moving Defendants[9] move the court for an order compelling Estate to serve responses to Moving Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One. Moving Defendants additionally seek sanctions against Estate and Hakkak in the amount of $1,810.00.

The motion is granted. Estate is to provide verified responses, without objections, to Allen’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One, within 30 days from the date of the notice of ruling.

[1] The subject discovery was propounded to Graciela by Allen only; the motion, however, was brought by both Allen and Dianne.

[2] The subject discovery was propounded to Graciela by Allen only; the motion, however, was brought by both Allen and Dianne.

[3] The subject discovery was propounded to Graciela by Allen only; the motion, however, was brought by both Allen and Dianne.

[4] The subject discovery was propounded to Graciela by Allen only; the motion, however, was brought by both Allen and Dianne.

[5] The subject discovery was propounded to Graciela by Allen only; the motion, however, was brought by both Allen and Dianne.

[6] The subject discovery was propounded to Graciela by Allen only; the motion, however, was brought by both Allen and Dianne.

[7] The subject discovery was propounded to Graciela by Allen only; the motion, however, was brought by both Allen and Dianne.

[8] The subject discovery was propounded to Graciela by Allen only; the motion, however, was brought by both Allen and Dianne.

[9] The subject discovery was propounded to Graciela by Allen only; the motion, however, was brought by both Allen and Dianne.