IMURAANN JONES-WHITE VS JOHN G KAISER, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC15275    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: 26

Jones-White v. Kaiser, et al.

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Raymond T. Kaiser’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IMURAANN JONES-WHITE IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $450.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On August 9, 2019, Defendant Raymond T. Kaiser (“Moving Defendant”) served Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff Imuraann Jones-White (“Plaintiff”). (Motion, DeBiaso Decl., Exh. B.) To date, Moving Defendant has not received any discovery responses to the requests propounded on Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶4 and Exh. C.) As a result, Moving Defendant filed the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on December 18, 2019. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 21, 2020.

Moving Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff has not provided verified responses to the requests propounded on September 9, 2019. There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. The opposition papers are difficult to understand and do not demonstrate that responses to the requests for admission have been served. Additionally, it does not appear that the opposition was served on Defendant.

The Court finds the failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030 and 2033.280, and have been properly noticed. However, the amount sought is excessive given the straightforward and unopposed nature of the Motion. Sanctions are granted against Plaintiff in the amount of $450.00, based on two hours of attorney time billed at $195.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Id. at ¶6.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Raymond T. Kaiser’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IMURAANN JONES-WHITE IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $450.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC15275    Hearing Date: July 07, 2020    Dept: 26

Jones-White v. Kaiser, et al.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

(CCP § 473(a))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Raymond T. Kaiser and John G. Kaiser’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer is GRANTED. AMENDED ANSWER TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff Imuraann Jones-White (“Plaintiff”) filed this action based in contract against John Kaiser and Raymond Kaiser (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff argues she is entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $15,000 plus related expenses in connection with a Home Improvement Contract (the “Contract”) entered into by Plaintiff for the installation of windows on property located at 608 W. Hillcrest Blvd., Inglewood, CA 90301 (the “Property”). (Complaint, Attach. 1.) Property is owned by Defendants. (Id., Exh. A-1.)

On February 8, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. On November 13, 2019, Defendants filed this Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, provides that “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

III. Discussion

A. Prejudice

The policy favoring amendments and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. [Citation.]” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . . . [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) Where a proposed amendment opens an entirely new substantive area of injury on the eve of trial without any explanation for why the major change had not been made long before, denial of leave is appropriately ordered in the court’s discretion. (Id.)

Defendants seek to add one new affirmative defense, namely a “counterclaim” defense. (Mot., Exh. A (proposed amended answer) p. 5-6.) Defendants argue that since filing the original complaint in December 2018, Plaintiff has incurred unpaid rent with respect to the Property Plaintiff rented from Defendant. (Mot., R. Kaiser Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendants also argue Plaintiff has willfully or negligently damaged those rental premises and that certain items of Defendants’ personal property have gone missing. (Id.) In June 2019, an unlawful detainer action was initiated against Plaintiff, which remains pending. (Id.) In September 2019, Plaintiff vacated the Property. (Id.) Defendants argue the amendment is necessary so they can properly assert a defense for monetary offset(s). (Id.)

As noted above, Plaintiff has not opposed the instant Motion. The court discerns no prejudice to Defendant in granting this Motion, and Plaintiff has not argued otherwise.

B. Procedural Requirements of CRC 3.1324

A motion for leave to file an amended pleading must also comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration setting forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a) & (b).)

Defendants provided a copy of the proposed amended answer. (Mot., Exh. A (proposed amended answer) p. 5-6.) The declaration of Raymond T. Kaiser states the amendment is necessary to assert a proper defense and that the affirmative defense is directly related to Plaintiff’s cause of action. (Id.) It also states Defendants discovered extensive property damage to the home after Plaintiff vacated the Subject Property on September 21, 2019. (Id.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendants have satisfied the procedural requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

C. Terminology

The proposed eighteenth affirmative defense is named “Counterclaims” in the proposed Amended Answer. (Motion, Exh. A-1, p. 5:22-23.) The Court notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 428.80 provides that “the counterclaim is abolished.” Defendants should correct their proposed amendment to more properly reflect the affirmative defense they are seeking to add, namely, “offset.”

IV. Conclusion & Order

Defendants Raymond T. Kaiser and John G. Kaiser’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer is GRANTED. AMENDED ANSWER TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.