Case Number: BC704229 Hearing Date: February 28, 2020 Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

CHARLES LEWIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

BC704229

c/w 18STCV02528

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

4126 ASSOCIATES LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: February 28, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendants 4126 Associates LP and Frank Martini

Responding Party: None

(1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two

(2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two

The court considered the moving papers. There is no opposition.

RULING

The motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Danielle Andrews is ordered to serve on defendants further supplemental responses without objections to defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set Two, within 15 days.

Plaintiff Danielle Andrews and plaintiff’s attorney, Thomas W. Kielty, are ordered to pay a monetary sanction to defendants in the amount of $322.50 within 30 days.

Plaintiff Erica Cleveland is ordered to serve on defendants further supplemental responses without objections to defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set Two, within 15 days.

Plaintiff Erica Cleveland and plaintiff’s attorney, Thomas W. Kielty, are ordered to pay a monetary sanction to defendants in the amount of $322.50 within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2018, plaintiff Chanee Hudson filed a complaint against 4126 Associates, LP, 4200 West Century Associates, LLC, and several others.

On October 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against 4126 Associates LP and Frank Martini for breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, negligent misrepresentation, concealment, and unfair business practices. Plaintiff alleges that this case involves a “slumlord” renting out illegal, defective, and uninhabitable dwelling units without certificates of occupancy to plaintiff and others at 4126 W. Century Blvd., in the City of Inglewood. Plaintiff alleges that while residing at the subject property, he suffered numerous symptoms from toxic mold.

On February 25, 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation for leave to file a second amended complaint.

On March 1, 2019, BC704229 and 18STCV02528 were deemed related.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

45-Day Rule: This motion must be served within 45 days after service of the response in question (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, or fax; see CCP § 1013); otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response to the CCP §2031.010 demand. CCP §§2031.310(c), 2016.050; see Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 736, 745. The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410. The parties, however, can also agree in writing on a specific later date by which to file the motion to compel. CCP §2031.310(c).

Meet-and-Confer Requirement: The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court (so-called “meet and confer”). CCP §§2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).

Separate Statement: Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement. This includes a motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection of documents or tangible things. CRC Rule 3.1020(a)(3).

Interrogatories

CCP §2030.300 states: “(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. . . . (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories. . . .”

DISCUSSION

Defendants 4126 Associations LP and Frank Martini request that the court order plaintiffs Danielle Andrews and Erica Cleveland to provide further, verified responses to defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set Two.

Defendants served special interrogatories, set two, on each of the plaintiffs on September 18, 2019. Defendants contend that on October 23, 2019, plaintiffs responded with inadequate responses. On October 28, 2019, defendants sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiffs’ counsel. On November 27, 2019, defense counsel sent an email to plaintiffs’ counsel requesting further responses by December 2, 2019. As of the date of the filing of the motions on December 4, 2019, plaintiffs had not served supplemental responses.

The court finds that plaintiffs’ objections lack merit and the responses are deficient. See Separate Statement. The motions are GRANTED.

Sanctions

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel further responses against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §2031.310(h).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendants request monetary sanctions against each plaintiff and her counsel. The court finds that sanctions are warranted. Defendants assert that they incurred a total of $3,925 in attorney’s fees and costs for all ten discovery motions. The court notes that two of the motions were withdrawn and the other six are scheduled for hearing dates in March. The court finds that $322.50 ($175/hr. x 1.5 hrs., filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against each plaintiff and her attorney of record.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.