Case Number: GC044440    Hearing Date: August 08, 2014    Dept: NCE

Motion of defendants Castle Green Homeowners Association, Witkin & Neal and LB Property Management to compel further responses from plaintiffs Rahim Multani and Afshan Multani to Document Demands is denied as untimely. It was set to be heard beyond the 15th day before the date initially set for trial. On July 21, 2014, the court denied without prejudice the motion to extend the discovery cut-off and discovery motion cut-off dates and that motion has not been renewed. Case law makes it clear that a trial court may not consider an untimely discovery motion without first hearing and granting a proper motion to reopen discovery. Pelton-Shepard Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568.

Monetary sanctions requested by the opposing party are granted. Sanctions in the amount of $1,600 are awarded against moving defendants, jointly and severally. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.030(a), (h) (misuse of discovery includes “making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery) and 2031.310(h)(the court “shall impose a monetary sanction …against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand, 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.”)

Motion of defendants Castle Green Homeowners Association, Witkin & Neal, LLC, and LB Property Management for judgment and/or adjudication on the pleadings is denied.

Moving parties argue they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff Rahim Multani on the ground he lacks standing because he was not an “owner” of the property with the statutory right to redeem following foreclosure. However, the statute, CCP section 729.020, does not refer to an “owner,” instead providing the right to redeem to a “judgment debtor.” It appears from the pleading that Rahim Multani was treated as a “judgment debtor” at all times with respect to the HOA assessments which purportedly were delinquent and upon which foreclosure was based. [¶¶ 18-38, 42-47.] Moving parties offer no legal authority or analysis of the statute which establishes that only an owner of record title is a “judgment debtor” for purposes of the statute.

In addition, the fact that Rahim Multani was not a holder of record title does not establish that he was not an owner of the unit because he may have had an unrecorded ownership interest.

Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Ex. 3, but declined as to Exs. 1 and 2. The court declines to take judicial notice of deposition testimony (Exs. 1 and 2) because it is not testimony about matters about which there is no factual dispute. See Joslin v. H.A.S. Insurance Brokerage(1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 396, 375 (“…judicial notice of matters upon demurrer will be dispositive only in those instances where there is not or cannot be a factual dispute concerning that which is sought to be judicially noticed.”)