Case Number: BC659568 Hearing Date: July 23, 2018 Dept: 73

7/23/18
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

EDWARD OLSHANSKY, et al. v. NANCY DASSOUF, et al. (BC659568)

Counsel for plaintiffs/moving parties: Keith Turner; Justin Escano (Turner, etc.)
Counsel for defendants/opposing parties: Barry Reagan; Guillermo Partida (Slaughter, etc.)

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY (filed 6/6/18)

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel inspection of Defendants’ property is DENIED.
Defendants’ requests for sanctions in the amount of $825 is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Even assuming Plaintiffs’ demand was timely and the inspection was included in the parties’ stipulation to continue trial, Plaintiffs do not meet their burden in establishing good cause.

The fact that Defendants have inspected Plaintiffs’ property twice is unpersuasive because Defendants’ inspections were not identical (one was observational and the other was for testing). Plaintiffs claim that it was their understanding that Defendants promised Plaintiffs a second inspection (see Escano Decl., ¶ 2), but this promise is not substantiated with evidence of such an agreement. Plaintiffs’ counsel reasons that the primary purpose of the inspection is so that the new expert engineer, Steve Norris, can see Defendants’ property and take the necessary photographs and measurements to prepare and complete his opinions in this matter. (Escano Decl., ¶ 18.) However, Plaintiffs fail to discuss why Mr. Norris cannot rely on the photographs and measurements taken at the January inspection by another engineer (Casey Hemmatyar). Further, Plaintiffs argue that there is good cause for a second observational inspection because, at the first inspection, Defendants refused to turn off the bubbling pool jets and prohibited Ms. Smith from going into Defendants’ home to view the exact vantage point on the second floor where a photograph was taken in 1987. However, there is no evidence that a second inspection would be any different.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel inspection is DENIED.

Sanctions
Defendants’ request for sanctions is entirely based on their meritless argument that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not satisfy the meet and confer requirements. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Unless waived, notice of ruling by Defendants.