This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 09:55:39 (UTC).

ALLISON WALTERS VS ACADEMY POINTE APARTMENTS

Case Summary

On 07/17/2015 ALLISON WALTERS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ACADEMY POINTE APARTMENTS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are AMY D. HOGUE and WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8250

  • Filing Date:

    07/17/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

AMY D. HOGUE

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

WALTERS ALLISON

Defendants and Respondents

ACADEMY POINTE APARTMENTS

DOES 1-20

ANZA MANAGEMENT COMPANY

LANKERSHIM APT INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MYBEDBUGLAWYER INC

VIRAG BRIAN JEFFREY

Defendant Attorneys

SMITH DAVID CAMPBELL

DROZIN GARTH M.

GREEN NOAH ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

7/3/2019: Minute Order

Other -

7/8/2019: Other -

Request for Refund / Order

8/6/2019: Request for Refund / Order

Association of Attorney

1/19/2017: Association of Attorney

Legacy Document

7/13/2017: Legacy Document

Minute Order

7/17/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/17/2018: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

9/17/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

11/1/2018: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Separate Statement

11/1/2018: Separate Statement

Certificate of Mailing for

11/7/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Order

11/7/2018: Order

Certificate of Mailing for

11/21/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Case Management Statement

1/17/2019: Case Management Statement

Opposition

3/29/2019: Opposition

Opposition

6/6/2019: Opposition

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND CONTINUE TRIAL DEADLINES; ORDER

11/28/2016: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND CONTINUE TRIAL DEADLINES; ORDER

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [ AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES ] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

6/14/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [ AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES ] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

89 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/16/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketReply (in Support of Motion to Compel); Filed by Allison Walters (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketOpposition (TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JAMES K. AUTREY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; PROPOSED ORDER); Filed by Lankershim Apt, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JAMES K AUTREY IN SUPPORT THEREOF); Filed by Academy Pointe Apartments (Defendant); Lankershim Apt, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketRequest for Refund / Order; Filed by Lankershim Apt, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • DocketNotice (OF MINUTE ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RE-SETTING DEFENDANTS? MOTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN UNDERTAKING); Filed by Academy Pointe Apartments (Defendant); Lankershim Apt, Inc. (Defendant); ANZA MANAGEMENT COMPANY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • Docketat 3:41 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
123 More Docket Entries
  • 10/14/2016
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Academy Pointe Apartments (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Allison Walters (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2015
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS AND COMPLAIN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2015
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Allison Walters (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Allison Walters (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2015
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2015
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY (VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE 1941.1); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC588250    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: A

Walters v Academy Pointe Apartments

Motion to Compel Further PMK Deposition

Calendar:

05

Case No.:

BC588250

Hearing Date:

October 25, 2019

Action Filed:

July 17, 2015

Trial Date:

January 13, 2020

MP:

Plaintiff Allison Walters

RP:

Defendants Academy Pointe Apartments; Lankershim Apartments, Inc.; Anza Management Company

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from the alleged failure of Defendants Academy Pointe Apartments; Lankershim Apartments, Inc.; and Anza Management Company (“Defendants”) to remediate a purported bed bug infestation on the premises of their lessor, Plaintiff Allison Walters (“Plaintiff”), apartment in 2013.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on July 17, 2015, alleging eight causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Civ. Code §1941.1), (2) Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Health and Safety Code §17920.3), (3) Negligence/Premises Liability, (4) Nuisance, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (6) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, (7) Breach of Contract, and (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”).

PRESENTATION:

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on September 18, 2019, and Defendants filed opposition on October 04, 2019. No reply brief has been received by the Court.

The Court heard oral arguments on October 18, 2019, where Plaintiff raised Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.520 as a potential basis for granting the motion. The Court permitted Defendant to file supplemental opposition regarding Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.520 on or before October 25, 2019, and that the matter would stand submitted on October 25, 2019. The Court received Defendants supplemental brief on October 23, 2019.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants to produce their PMK for a second deposition, together with an order compelling responses to seven (7) questions asked during the first deposition. Additionally, Plaintiff moves for sanctions in the amount of $6,038.35.

DISCUSSION:

Procedural Objection – Prior to discussing the merits of the motion Defendants raise the issue of the timeliness of the motion under Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.480(b), which provides that the “motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” In opposition, Defendants argue that the record was complete as of July 18, 2019, when the transcript was finalized by the court reported, making the last day to file the instant motion within the 60-day window under the Code September 16, 2019. Therefore, Defendants argue, the instant motion’s September 18, 2019, filing date is untimely.

At oral arguments, Plaintiff raised Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.520 as a potential basis for tolling the time for the period to file the instant motion under Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.480(b) to run. Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.520 provides that for a period of 30 days any attending party to a deposition may approve a transcript or refuse to approve it, modify any answer. Although not fully argued at oral arguments, the Court infers that Plaintiff’s argument is that there was an additional 30 days from the completion of the transcript on July 18, 2019, that the transcript could have been modified, such that the record was not complete for the purposes of Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.480(b).

In Defendant’s supplemental opposition, they note that Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.520 does not speak to the topic of moving to compel, and is a self-contained provision related solely to the timeline for the correction of transcripts. Further, Defendant contends that the 60-day mandatory deadline would be rendered an idle act by the legislature if the timeline were mutable pursuant to the terms of Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.520, which permit the parties to agree to alternative correction schedules.

The Court agrees with Defendant’s arguments, and notes that the 60-day deadline is mandatory. See, e.g., Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123, 136-37 (citing to Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1408–10). Moreover, there is a colorable argument that the “record of the deposition” was complete upon Defendant’s making the relevant objections during the deposition itself, thus pushing the 60-day deadline to file the instant motion back to August 19, 2019. See Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123; Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 1164 (while both Unzipped and Rutledge discuss the deadline in terms of document production, the principal that both courts use to calculate the completion of the record for purposes of the 60-day filing period is the date at which the objections to the production were made. The reasoning for this is that everything necessary to file the motion was in existence as-of the date of the objection, thus the moving party had the right and the obligation to bring the motion to compel within a timely period following every necessary element of the underlying non-production of evidence. Applying such rationale to the instant case would set the time to respond as 60-days from the taking of the deposition itself, when Defendants objected to the discovery responses.).

Further, the Court notes that the statutory scheme of Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.480 militates against Plaintiff’s use of Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.520. Notably, Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.480(h) requires “[n]ot less than five days prior to the hearing on this motion, the moving party shall lodge with the court a certified copy of any parts of the stenographic transcript of the deposition that are relevant to the motion.” If the transcript of the deposition were required to be complete pursuant to the terms of Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.520 prior to the triggering of the 60-day mandatory deadline, this subsection would be completely superfluous, as the moving party would have the entire transcript record for up to 60 days prior to filing the motion. Instead, Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.480(h) contemplates the situation where the transcript is not yet finalized, at the time the motion to compel is made, allowing the moving party additional time to obtain the transcript and lodge it with the Court without suffering prejudice for failing to file the motion with a complete transcript.

As such, the motion is untimely regardless of whether the date is set from the date of Defendants’ objections (June 20, 2019), or whether the date is set from the date of the court reporter’s certification of the transcript (July 18, 2019). Accordingly, the motion will be denied as untimely.

---

RULING: Deny motion.

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Allison Walters’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Second PMK Deposition came on regularly for hearing on October 25, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE