SEAN SIMMS VS DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC08429    Hearing Date: November 13, 2020    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Sean Simms v. Deutsche Bank, Case No. 19STLC08429

Hearing Date November 13, 2020

Defendant’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and to Compel Further Responses to Form/Special Interrogatories (UNOPPOSED)

Defendant served interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production of documents on April 10, 2020; plaintiff failed to respond. Defendant moves to compel answers to form and special interrogatories and deem admitted the facts set forth in the requests for admission.

If a party fails to timely respond to interrogatories, the propounding party may move to compel a response. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.290. Additionally, if a party fails to respond to requests for admission, the propounding party may move to deem the facts set forth in the requests admitted. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2033.280. A court may impose sanctions for failure to respond. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.010(d).

Defendant propounded discovery and received no response. As plaintiff does not oppose this motion, there is no argument or evidence court refuting defendant’s claims. All available evidence indicates plaintiff violated his obligations under the Code. The motion is proper, as are sanctions. GRANTED. Defendant awarded $1,001.50 in sanctions, payable within 30 days.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

Case Number: 19STLC08429    Hearing Date: January 30, 2020    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Sean Simms v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. Case Number 19STLC08429

Hearing Date: January 30, 2020

Defendant Deutsche Bank’s Demurrer to Complaint

Plaintiff alleges he entered into a lease agreement with his building’s previous owner in April 2016 and the building was later purchased by Deutsche Bank, which confirmed the lease’s term and accepted plaintiff as a continuing tenant. Plaintiff alleges he has been prevented from using a garage and sues for declaratory relief regarding his right to possession of the garage.

Defendant argues it is not a party to the lease. Plaintiff alleges Deustche Bank “acknowledged all terms to [plaintiff’s] lease,” including provisions related to the garage. For purposes of pleading, this allegation is treated as true. While this may be a question of fact, it is not properly decided on demurrer.

Deustche also argues plaintiff does not allege any misconduct by Deutsche. As “misconduct” is not an element of a declaratory relief claim, its absence is irrelevant.

Deustche argues the lease expired on its own terms as of March 31, 2019. However, per Cal. Civ. Code §1945, parties to a lease are “presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time,” if the lessee remains in possession after expiration of the lease term and lessor continues accepting rent. Cal. Civ. Code §1945. As plaintiff alleges he continues to pay rent and remains in possession (Complaint at ¶12), whether the lease has expired or been renewed is a question of fact.

Defendant argues plaintiff cannot allege existence of an actual, present controversy because Deutsche engaged in no wrongful conduct and the purported lease agreement no longer exists. The court addressed those arguments above.

Defendant argues declaratory relief operates prospectively and cannot be used to redress past wrongs. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations regarding use of the garage. This is a proper subject for declaratory relief.

Finally, defendant argues plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged damages. Damages are not a required element of declaratory relief, nor are they recoverable in a declaratory relief action.

The demurrer is OVERRULED. The court will, on its own motion strike the plaintiff’s request for damages (page 4, paragraph 4), without leave to amend.