Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV04161, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 19STCV04161 Hearing Date: October 17, 2022 Dept: 31
MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED, IN PART
Background
On February 4, 2019 Plaintiffs Deandre Vaughns (“DV”), Danielle Watkins (“DW”), Deandre Vaughns, Jr. (“DVJ”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem DV, and Dre-Dann Vaughns (“DDV”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem DV (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability, (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) negligence, (5) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, and (6) private nuisance against Defendant Las Aguilas Properties, LLC (“Aguilas”).
On April 30, 2020, Defendants Management and Leasing Services (“MLS”), Juan Vargas (“JV”), Elvira Vargas (“EV”), and Irma Verduzco (“IV”) were substituted in for Does 1-4, respectively.
On July 15, 2021, JV and EV were dismissed.
On January 26, 2022, Power Property Management, Inc. was substituted in for Doe 5.
On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions.
On October 04, 2022, Defendants filed Opposing Papers.
On October 07, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.
On October 10, 2022, Defendants filed a Supplemental Brief.
Legal Standard
Courts have the authority to issue monetary sanctions,
evidentiary sanctions, or terminating sanctions against parties engaging in
misuse of the discovery process after giving the parties proper notice and the
opportunity to be heard. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) The Discovery Act
defines misuse of discovery as including (1) a failure to respond or to submit
to an authorized method of discovery (id. § 2023.010, subd. (d)) and (2)
disobedience to a court order to provide discovery (id., subd. (g)).
The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to
discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the
ultimate sanction of termination of the action. If a lesser sanction fails to
curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the
discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is
reached that will curb the abuse. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009)
174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “The penalty should be appropriate to the
dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the
interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Wilson v.
Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 952, 959.)
In determining whether sanctions should be imposed,
courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the “conduct of
the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the
propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the
discovery.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)
Generally, two facts are prerequisites to the imposition of nonmonetary
sanctions: (1) absent unusual circumstances, there must be a failure to comply
with a court order and (2) the failure must be willful. (Biles v. Exxon
Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.)
Request for Judicial Notice
1) Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant Las Aguilas Properties, LLC’s Responses Without Objection to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Interrogatories, Sets One through Three;
2) Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant Las Aguilas Properties, LLC’s Responses Without Objection to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Interrogatories, Sets One through Three.
Plaintiffs’ Request for
Judicial Notice is GRANTED.
Discussion
Plaintiffs allege Defendant Las Aguilas failed to comply
with the Court’s April 22, 2022, Order and failed to serve Supplemental
Responses for Production Set One and Two and Supplemental Interrogatories, Set
One and Two, without objection.
On April 22, 2022, this Court Ordered Defendant Las Aguilas to serve Supplemental Responses for Production Set One and Set Two and Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One to Three, without objection within 30 days.
Plaintiffs assert Defendant served unverified responses to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, and Responses to Supplemental Request for Production, Set One. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendant did not serve any responses to Set Two of the Supplemental Responses.
Defendant admits it served non-complaint Supplemental Responses on May 23, 2033. Plaintiffs assert they received no Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, or Supplemental Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set Two. (Schwartz Decl. Ex. 3.) Although Plaintiffs assert that every unverified response contained objections, Defendants assert that the only objections on the Supplemental Responses were trial objections in the prefatory statement and there were none in the supplemental responses to Set Ones. As such, the Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs failed to quote the Supplemental Responses verbatim.
Defendant attests that Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Supplemental Interrogatories, with all the information requested by Plaintiffs, were served by email on October 4, 2033. (Edwin Schwartz Decl. Ex. 4 and 5.)
However, Plaintiffs assert that each of the five people to whom Defendant alleges to have served the responses, have searched their email in boxes and declare that they have not received the responses. (Christensen Decl. ¶ ¶ 3,4; Chapman Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3; Friedman Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3; Andersen Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3; Sam Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has neither responded to the requests nor provided the “sent” email showing that service was effectuated. (Id.)
The fact that Plaintiffs can obtain the requested evidence from the attachments to the Defendants’ opposition is not evidence that Defendants complied with the Court’s April 22, 2022, Order. Moreover, Defendants do not explain why they waited until October 04, 2022, more than four months later, to serve the Supplemental Responses, when Plaintiffs filed this Motion on May 27, 2022.
Plaintiffs request monetary sanctions or, alternatively, evidentiary or issue sanctions that would preclude Defendants from introducing at trial witnesses Peter Vargas, Ruben Vargas, or anyone else from Power Property Management.
Defendants assert that the identities of Peter Vargas, Ruben
Vargas, and Power Property Management were known to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff
Deandre Vaughns testified that he was in communication with Ruben Vargas when
he was deposed on February 17, 2022. Moreover,
Plaintiff amended the Complaint to add Power Property Management as Doe 5 and Power Property Management filed an Answer to the Complaint on February 14, 2022. For this, reason, the Court declines to impose an issue sanction at this time. (See Code. Civ. Proc., § 2032.030 subd. (b).) However, the Court agrees that the Defendant’ conduct was willful in failing to timely comply with the April 22, 2022, Order and an abuse of discovery. Accordingly, monetary sanctions are appropriate and will be awarded. (Id. subd. (a).)
The Court previously awarded monetary sanctions in the amount of $750.00 on April 22, 2022, when this Court granted in part, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel. (Min. Or. 04/22/22.) The Court also awarded sanctions in the amount of $6,000.00 on July 16, 2021. (Min. Or. 07/16/21.) Another Motion for terminating sanctions is set to be heard on January 04, 2022.
Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts his billing rate is $750.00 per hour and asserts he spent 8.0 hours preparing the Motion and Separate Statement. (Christensen Decl. ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipates spending an additional 3.0 hours reviewing and replying to opposing papers and 1.0 hours preparing for the hearing. In total, Plaintiffs’ counsel requests $9,000.00 in monetary sanctions.
The Court awards a lesser amount and approves instead 10.00 hours of work at $750.00 per hour, for total sanctions in the amount of $7,500.00 against Defendant Las Aguilas Properties, LLC, and its counsel of record Messner Reeves, LLP.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is GRANTED, IN PART. The Court awards $7,5000.00 in sanctions against Defendant Las Aguilas Properties, LLC, and its counsel of record Messner Reeves, LLP.
Plaintiffs to give notice.