Case Number: KC066122 Hearing Date: May 19, 2014 Dept: J

Re: Ronald D. Brown, et al. v. Jose Douglas Fallas, etc., et al. (KC066122)

(1) DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Moving Parties: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants

Respondent: Defendant/Cross-Complainant

POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK; Reply OK

Plaintiffs seek to quiet title on an allegedly false claim of an easement by their neighbor, Defendant. The Complaint, filed on 6/27/13, asserts causes of action for:

1. Trespass (Personal Entries Onto Land)
2. Trespass (Encroachment)
3. Interference with Prospective Business Advantage
4. Slander of Title
5. Quiet Title
6. Injunctive Relief

The Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint on 2/5/14 for:

1. Quiet title
2. Injunctive relief
3. Declaratory relief

FSC is set for 1/05/15. Trial is set for 1/13/15.

(1) DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT:

Counsel for Cross-Complaiant Jose Douglas Fallas has filed an opposition indicating that he will be filing a First Amended Cross-Complaint prior to the hearing. Assuming that this is done, the demurrer and motion to strike the cross-complaint are deemed moot.

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE:

Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant to provide furthe responses as to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2-4, 6-8, and 11-15. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s responses thereto consisted of improper objections, were incomplete (such as failing to provide the addressess and telephone numbers of witnesses), evasive, and simply refers plaintiffs to documents provided in response to a request for production of documents.

In opposition, counsel for Defendant contends that they will be supplementing their responses, and that the delay in doing so is due to Defendant Fallas’s limited knowledge of legal terminoloby and inability to understand the questions posed to him. Counsel for Defendant represents that supplemental responses will be served prior to the hearing. If so, the motion to compel further responses is moot. If not, the motion is granted and Defendant is to provide further verified responses within 10 days.

SANCTIONS:

Regardless of Defendant Fallas’s difficulty in communicating with his attorneys, it was ultimately his attorneys that prepared and served the deficient responses. Defendant Fallas and his counsel of record are jointly ordered to pay to counsel for Plaintiffs discovery sanctions in the sum of $1,560.00 (6 x $250 + $60) within 10 days.