SIMEON THOMPSON VS FELTON BUCKHOLTZ, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC09608    Hearing Date: May 18, 2021    Dept: 26

Thompson v. Buckholtz, et al

MOTION FOR MONETARY, EVIDENTIARY AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions, or in the alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions; and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED AS TO THE EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO THE TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONSANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Defendants Anthony Hames (“Defendant Hames”) and Felton Buckholtz (“Defendant Buckholtz”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on October 16, 2019. On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Inspection and Form Interrogatories (“the Motion to Compel”). The Motion to Compel was initially set for hearing on March 19, 2020. Defendants served Plaintiff with responses on March 12, 2020. (Reply, filed 3/12/20, Tuey Decl., ¶2.) Because the responses were not served until the reply to the Motion to Compel was due, Plaintiff’s counsel had no opportunity to review whether the responses were complete and legally sufficient. (Ibid.) Due to the COVID-related stay at home orders, the hearing did not take place on March 19, 2020 but was continued to July 15, 2020.

Both parties appeared on July 15, 2020, at which time the Court ordered Defendant Hames to serve verified responses without objection to the demands for inspection and to pay sanctions of $400.00 within 20 days’ notice of the order. (Minute Order, 7/15/20, p. 2.) The Court further took into account Defendant Hames’ service of responses prior to the hearing but ruled that “late service of responses does not absolve [Hames] of this order.” (Ibid.) The Court continued the hearing to September 16, 2020 to address the remainder of the discovery requests raised by the Motion to Compel.

On September 16, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to compel responses to the remaining sets of discovery and awarded monetary sanctions. (Minute Order, 9/16/20, p. 2.) The Court again ordered that Defendants’ late service of responses did not absolve them of compliance with the discovery orders. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Monetary, Evidentiary and/or Terminating Sanctions on December 9, 2020. Defendants filed an opposition on April 8, 2021 and Plaintiff replied on April 14, 2021.

At the initial hearing on the Motion on April 21, 2021, the Court found that neither monetary sanctions nor terminating sanctions were appropriate. (Minute Order, 04/21/21.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file supplemental briefing to allow for specific tailoring of evidentiary sanctions. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief on May 4, 2021.

Discussion

This action arises out of an alleged agreement between the parties to equally split the rent and cost of utilities with respect to a shared apartment. Halfway through the 12-month lease agreement, Defendants allegedly stopped paying their share. The Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Based on these claims, Plaintiff sought discovery regarding (1) the existence of an agreement to split rent, utilities and other expenses of the property during the parties’ stay at the apartment; (2) Defendants’ performance under the agreement; (3) whether Defendant’s performance was excused by any breach by Plaintiff; and (4) Plaintiff’s damages.

The deficient discovery responses pertain to Special Interrogatories that asked Defendants to:

(1) Identify documents or photographs that describe or depict any place, object, or individual concerning the incident (defined as the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach of contract);

(2) Identify other physical evidence that shows how the incident occurred or the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and provide contact information for any person who has the evidence;

(3) State the facts in support of your contention that you are not responsible for Plaintiff’s damages;

(4) Identify all documents that evidence the any part of the agreement that is not in writing and provide contact information for the persons who have each document; and

(5) Identify each agreement that was excused, mutually terminated, unenforceable or ambiguous and state the facts as to why that agreement was excused, mutually terminated, unenforceable or ambiguous.

The deficient discovery responses also pertain to Requests for Production of Documents that asked Defendants to:

(1) Produce all documents and communications relating to any and all transactions by which you

a. paid an obligation or debt to Plaintiff or the landlords;

b. transferred or deposited any funds into an account of Plaintiff or the landlords;

c. paid an obligation or debt relating to the apartment;

d. paid an obligation or debt relating to the lease;

(2) Produce all documents and communications relating to

a. Plaintiff

b. Landreth

c. Any agreement related to the lease

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has demonstrated sanctions are appropriate as to prohibit Defendants from producing evidence (1) that Defendants paid rent or utilities between May 2019 through June 2020; (2) that Plaintiff purportedly breached the agreement with Defendants to split the rent or utilities; and (3) about Plaintiff’s damages. However, the Court finds sanctions are not appropriate to prohibit Defendants from producing evidence of all other affirmative defenses. For example, inequitable conduct, unclean hands, and unjust enrichment. Nor are Defendants precluded from presenting evidence regarding Plaintiff’s character under this sanctions order.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions, or in the alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions; and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED AS TO THE EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO THE TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC09608    Hearing Date: November 02, 2020    Dept: 26

Thompson v. Buckholtz, et al.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

(CCP § 284(2); CRC Rule 3.1362)

TENTATIVE RULING

Eric Sapir, Esq.’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Anthony Hames is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. DEFENDANT HAMES FILED A SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY ON JULY 15, 2020.

Court clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC09608    Hearing Date: September 16, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendants to Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANTS ARE TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DEMANDS FOR INSPECTION AND FORM INTERROGATORIES WITHIN 20 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANTS ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $400.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Defendants Anthony Hames and Felton Buckholtz (“Defendants”) on October 16, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Inspection and Form Interrogatories on February 14, 2020. Defendants filed an opposition on March 6, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on March 12, 2020. On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff a supplemental declaration.

The Motion initially came for hearing on July 15, 2020, at which time the Court granted the Motion in part and continued the hearing with respect to the request to compel Defendant Anthony Hames’ responses to Form Interrogatories and Felton Buckholtz’s responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Inspection. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file three additional filing fees with respect to these requests. The filing fees were paid on July 15, 2020.

Due to Defendant Hames’ failure to respond to the Form Interrogatories and Defendant Buckholtz’s failure to respond to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Inspection, the remainder of the Motion is granted. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO THE DEMANDS FOR INSPECTION AND FORM INTERROGATORIES WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. (CODE CIV. PROC., §§ 2030.300, 2031.300.) DEFENDANTS’ LATE SERVICE OF RESPONSES DOES NOT ABSOLVE THEM OF THIS ORDER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THE RESPONSES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.

MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE ALSO AWARDED UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 2030.290, 2031.290 AND 2023.010. SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE AMOUNT OF $400.00 BASED ON A LODESTAR CALCULATION. (MOTION, TUEY DECL., ¶12.) DEFENDANTS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY THE SANCTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC09608    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 26

Thompson v. Buckholtz, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendants to Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions are GRANTED solely as to Defendant Anthony Hames’ response to Demands for Inspection. DEFENDANT HAMES IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE Demands for Inspection WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF HAMES IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $400.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Hearing on remainder of Plaintiff Simeon Thompson’s Motion is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 AT ___10__ AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Simeon Thompson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Defendants Anthony Hames and Felton Buckholtz (“Defendants”) on October 16, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Inspection and Form Interrogatories on February 14, 2020. Defendants filed an opposition on March 6, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on March 12, 2020. On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff a supplemental declaration.

The Court initially addresses the fact that Plaintiff filed a single motion seeking relief with respect to two Defendants. Specifically, the Motion seeks to compel responses and for an award of sanctions from both Plaintiffs, who were each separately served Form Interrogatories and Demands for Inspection. Yet for each of the four requests, which should have been filed as four separate motions, Plaintiff only paid a single filing fee. Until Plaintiff pays three additional filing fees, the Court can only rule on the Motion as to one Defendant and one type of discovery.

The Court, therefore, finds that due to Defendant Hames’ failure to respond, the Motion is granted solely as to him as to the Demands for Inspection. Defendant Hames is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to the Demands for Inspection within twenty (20) days from the date of Plaintiff serving a notice of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Defendant Hames’ late service of responses does not absolve him of this order as Plaintiff contends the responses do not comply with the statutory requirements.

Monetary sanctions are also awarded under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.290. Given the simplicity of the Motion, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate in the amount of $400.00 based on a lodestar calculation. (Motion, Tuey Decl., ¶12.) Defendant Hames is ordered to pay the sanctions to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days’ notice of this Order.

With respect to the remainder of the discovery requests the hearing on the Motion is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 AT ___10_____ AM. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO PAY THREE (3) ADDITIONAL FILING FEES. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party to give notice.