Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV02848, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV02848    Hearing Date: December 13, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 11, 2024, plaintiffs Andrew Stewart and Shyla Stewart (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants William Cleary and Cindy Cleary (“Defendants”) alleging damage to their property from a landslide. Plaintiffs allege Defendants negligently failed to “secure their higher property against landslides onto Plaintiffs’ lower property.” (See, e.g., Compl., pp. 4, 6.)

On September 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this “Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiff’s Complaint and Interrogatories.” The motion, which does not comply with the California Rules of Court, rule 2.100, et seq., requests that the Court “order the Defendants to respond promptly and fully to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and [Special and Form] Interrogatories.” Plaintiffs also request “appropriate compensation for the time and expense of responding to the Defendant’s efforts to delay and inhibit a fair resolution of this case.”

On November 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “motion to amend motion to compel” which sought to withdraw the reference to their Special Interrogatories, Set One, from their motion. This motion to amend was accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities. 

Defendants filed an opposition brief and supporting declaration from defense counsel on December 2, 2024. Plaintiffs filed a “memorandum in response” on December 6, 2024.

II.          DISCUSSION

A.   Plaintiffs’ Request for “Answers to the Complaint”

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ papers do not comply with California Rules of Court, rules 2.100-2.119. Ony Plaintiffs’ “response” is filed on pleading paper, making it very difficult to cite to their moving papers. Nevertheless, the Court endeavors to cite to Plaintiffs’ papers by referring to the page number of the electronically-filed PDF.

Plaintiffs first argue that Defendants have improperly filed a “general denial” in response to their Complaint, including allegations “of facts well known to Defendant.” (Amended Motion, p. 3.) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a “further response” to their pleading. Plaintiffs’ complaint was unverified; therefore, a general denial suffices as an answer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (d) [general denial is sufficient if complaint is unverified].) If Plaintiffs wanted Defendants to specifically deny or admit particular allegations, Plaintiffs needed to have served and filed a verified complaint.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs’ request for a more detailed answer from Defendants.

B.   Plaintiffs’ Requests for Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One)

A notice of motion “must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.) A notice of motion that does not identify the specific interrogatories at issue or the appropriate statute for compelling a further response does not give adequate notice.” (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 138-139.) Notice of a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.300, subd. (c).) “[P]ro per litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) “[M]ere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. … A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985, citation omitted.)

Plaintiffs’ initial and amended moving papers do not: (1) identify the form interrogatories at issue in their motion, (2) include a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court rule 3.1345, or (3) include a copy of their interrogatories and Defendants’ responses for the Court’s review. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to give adequate notice of their motion and the Court is unable to rule on their request for a further response. (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284-1285 [self-represented litigants are not exempt from statutes or court rules governing procedure].) The Court additionally notes that Plaintiffs improperly cite to “CCR 8 § 372.6,” in their motion to “amend” their motion to compel, which applies to administrative proceedings before the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, and not the correct provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is section 2030.300.

Defendants also point out that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer before filing this motion on September 11, 2024. Plaintiffs have not filed a declaration that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. Instead, in their “response”, Plaintiffs claim they met and conferred with defense counsel in June 2024 and on various occasions from late September to November 2024. (Response, p. 2.) These instances are unavailable because Defendants served responses on September 5, 2024, and this motion was filed on September 11, 2024. Although Plaintiffs later “amended” their motion on November 15, 2024, after requesting Defendants answer the Form Interrogatories “fully and honestly”, the belated amended motion does not satisfy their requirement to meet and confer before filing their discovery motion. (Response, pp. 2-3; Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) The failure to meet and confer as required is grounds for mandatory monetary sanctions and, notwithstanding the outcome of the particular discovery motion, the Court shall order the party or attorney who fails to confer as required before filing such motion to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020.) Here, Plaintiffs are fortunate that Defendants have graciously declined to request sanctions in their opposition.

Last, the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ improper request for “appropriate compensation.” Because Plaintiffs do not prevail on this motion, the request for compensation is DENIED. But even if Plaintiffs’ motion were successful, parties appearing in pro per may not recover attorneys' fees through discovery sanctions. (Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1020.) Moreover, although self-represented litigants may recover expenses incurred for computer-assisted legal research, photocopying, transportation, or any other identifiable items, Plaintiffs fail to identify any items in any of their papers.

III.        CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

          Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 13th day of December, 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.