2013-00686451
TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION #1:
The motion of plaintiff Samuel David Dawson for leave to file a second amended complaint that includes a cause of action for retaliatory eviction is granted, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff did not fully comply with the requirements in subdivisions (a) and (b) of CRC 3.1324.

Plaintiff substantially complied with Rule 3.1324 by indicating that his proposed second amended complaint contains a cause of action for retaliatory eviction based on facts that arose after he filed the first amended complaint. Plaintiff also served a copy of the proposed second amended complaint with the motion. Although the Court notes that the second amended complaint is substantially longer than the first amended complaint and that plaintiff is adding numerous allegations to the introductory portion of the complaint, there is no prejudice to the defendants in permitting the amendment this early in the litigation. Trial is not scheduled until 4-6-15, so there is plenty of time for the parties to conduct discovery on the new claims and allegations.

Plaintiff is directed to file the original second amended complaint and serve the defendants with a copy within 10 Court days.

ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION #2:
The motion of plaintiff Samuel David Dawson for a preliminary injunction and for evidentiary and issue sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks a preliminary injunction that enjoins defendant 8011 Santiago Canyon LLC, and its employees and agents from: (1) continuing the eviction process until this matter is concluded; and (2) engaging in harassment of plaintiff and his family and guests. It is denied to the extent that it seeks to impose evidentiary and monetary sanctions of $20,900 against the defendants and their attorneys.
The Court overrules defendant’s objections 1-9 and 16 to the declaration of plaintiff Dawson and sustains objections 10-15.

The Court overrules defendant’s objections 1-10 to the declaration of attorney Anthony Graham and objections 1-5 to the declaration of attorney Justin G. Schmidt.
To the extent that plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction that enjoins defendants and its agents and employees from continuing the eviction process and harassing plaintiff and his family and guests, plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to show that he paid for the term of the lease in advance and that the three-day notice to quit was served after he made demands for repairs. It was also timed to coincide with his family bringing a new baby to the house. Plaintiff has also provided sufficient evidence to show that he, his family, and his guests have been approached in the private area of the residence by defendant’s employees and the son of defendant’s principal as well as guests at parties held at the residence as provided in the lease.

To the extent that plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction that enjoins the defendants and their counsel from “continuing to offer money to witnesses for damaging testimony against plaintiff” and an order imposing evidentiary and monetary sanctions, plaintiff contends that defense counsel conducted a secret deposition of Gonzalo Daza, who was employed by the defendants at the residence at a caretaker, and that they offered him up to $7500 for testimony unfavorable to the plaintiff. However, defendants have shown that the deposition was taken in another action to which plaintiff is not a party. As a result, plaintiff was not entitled to notice of that deposition. Plaintiff is free to take Mr. Daza’s deposition in this action, and to fully explore his discussions with defendants and defense counsel, who contend that they were involved in settlement discussions with Mr. Daza. Furthermore, plaintiff has cited no authority for evidentiary or monetary sanctions except the Court’s inherent authority under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.

ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION #3:
The motion of defendant 8011 Santiago Canyon, LLC, for an order compelling plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents in his possession and imposing a monetary sanction of $4377.50 against the plaintiff and his attorney of record is granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks to compel plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents on a mutually convenient time and place within 20 days. The reply indicates that, since the motion was filed, counsel for the parties have agreed to hold the deposition on May 28, 2014 at 10:00 at the` office of defense counsel.

The motion is denied to the extent that it seeks to impose sanctions to reimburse defendant for attorneys’ fees, court reporter fees, and videographer fees. Plaintiff never refused to appear for deposition – it was just the date that was a problem. Plaintiff contends that the defendants deliberately scheduled his deposition for his wife’s delivery date. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the plaintiff to want to reschedule the deposition. It was also unreasonable for the defendant to go ahead and incur costs when defense counsel knew that plaintiff was not going to attend the deposition.

Plaintiff’s request for a monetary sanction of $3000 is also denied, as plaintiff’s counsel could have provided alternative dates for the deposition sooner.