This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/23/2020 at 11:12:48 (UTC).

AMERICAN/BCEGZ ET AL VS SHORES LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/04/2014 AMERICAN/BCEGZ filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against SHORES LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON, GERALD ROSENBERG, LISA HART COLE, NANCY L. NEWMAN and BOBBI TILLMON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8363

  • Filing Date:

    03/04/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON

GERALD ROSENBERG

LISA HART COLE

NANCY L. NEWMAN

BOBBI TILLMON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners, Cross Defendants and Appellants

AMERICAN MULTIFAMILY INC.

AMERICAN/BCEGZ

BCEGI-USA INC.

AMERICAN MUTLIFAMILY INC.

PATTERSON-PALM BUILDERS HARD

LARGO CONCRETE INC.

SHORES LLC

NADEL ARCHITECTS INC.

THE INS. CO. OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

NADEL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL INC.

DICKERSON DONALD F. ASSOCIATES

GROUP M ENGINEERS INC.

LIGHTING DESIGN ALLIANCE INC.

LRM LTD

WISS JANNEY ELSTNER ASSOCIATES INC.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

LARGO CONCRETE INC.

PACIFIC STAIR CORPORATION

RED MORTGAGE CAPITAL LLC

SHORES LLC

NADEL ARCHITECTS INC.

PACIFIC STAIR CORP.

THE INS. CO. OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

NADEL INC.

DICKERSON DONALD F. ASSOCIATES

LIGHTING DESIGN ALLIANCE INC.

LRM LTD

WISS JANNEY ELSTNER ASSOCIATES INC.

NADEL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL INC.

GROUP M ENGINEERS INC.

PATTERSON-PALM BUILDERS HARD

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

SHORES LLC

NADEL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL INC.

129 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CASTLE & ASSOCIATES

PYLE SIMS DUNCAN & STEVENSON

ROMYN DAVID C.

CASTLE & LAX LAW OFFICES OF

LISKA ANDREW J.

CASTLE & ASSOCIATES A PROF. LAW CORP.

Cross Defendant and Defendant Attorneys

COLLINS COLLINS MUIR & STEWART LLP

ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI

MANNING & KASS ELLROD RAMIREZ TRESTER

SPACH CAPALDI & WAGGAMAN LLP

RODARTI JOSEF M.

THE RODARTI GROUP

MONTELEONE & MCCRORY

RODARTI GROUP THE

WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN

GORDON & REES

RESUICK & LOUIS

CLARK HILL LLP

HAHN ADRIENNE R.

GORDON & REES LLP

Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

GORDON & REES LLP

SPACH CAPALDI & WAGGAMAN LLP

THE RODARTI GROUP

RODARTI GROUP THE

49 More Attorneys Available

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement

1/22/2019: Case Management Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DAVID C. ROMYN

9/22/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DAVID C. ROMYN

Notice of Ruling

9/4/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2014-07-10 00:00:00

7/10/2014: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2014-07-10 00:00:00

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2015-03-02 00:00:00

3/2/2015: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2015-03-02 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: CROSS-COMPL FLD - SUMMONS ISSUED

3/16/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: CROSS-COMPL FLD - SUMMONS ISSUED

Other - - OTHER - CIVIL DEPOSIT

3/24/2016: Other - - OTHER - CIVIL DEPOSIT

Summons

9/15/2016: Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: EX-PARTE APPLICATION

2/3/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: EX-PARTE APPLICATION

Case Management Order

5/22/2017: Case Management Order

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

9/7/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: PROOF-SERVICE/SUMMONS

Case Management Statement

1/8/2018: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Cross-Compl fld - Summons Issued

6/7/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Cross-Compl fld - Summons Issued

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order Re Defendant Shores, LLC's Peremptory Challenge P...) of 12/03/2018

12/3/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order Re Defendant Shores, LLC's Peremptory Challenge P...) of 12/03/2018

Notice - Notice Notice of Continuance

2/5/2019: Notice - Notice Notice of Continuance

Joinder

2/15/2019: Joinder

Notice - ADDENDUM TO SHORES AMENDED NOTICE OF RULING DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2019 WITH A COPY OF THE COURTS ORDER

2/28/2019: Notice - ADDENDUM TO SHORES AMENDED NOTICE OF RULING DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2019 WITH A COPY OF THE COURTS ORDER

Case Management Order -

8/6/2018: Case Management Order -

641 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/25/2021
  • Hearing10/25/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • Hearing10/18/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • Hearing09/27/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2021
  • Hearing08/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2021
  • Hearing05/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2021
  • Hearing04/06/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion to Quash or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Nadel Residential and Commercial, Inc's Moe Amendment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • Hearing12/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Hearing12/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • Hearing12/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Cross-Complaint) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
1,209 More Docket Entries
  • 03/24/2014
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2014
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by American Multifamily, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2014
  • DocketMotion; Filed by American Multifamily, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING ARBITRATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2014
  • DocketDECLARATION OF GREG PARKERIN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING ARBITRATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2014
  • DocketMotion; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2014
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2014
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF MECHANICS LIENS 1. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FORECLOSURE OF MECHANICS'LIEN; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2014
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2014
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by American Multifamily, Inc. (Plaintiff); American Mutlifamily, Inc. (Plaintiff); AMERICAN/BCEGZ (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC538363    Hearing Date: October 02, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: American/BCEGZ et al v. Shores LLC et al

CASE NO.: BC538363

MOTION: Redrock Security and Cabling’s Motion For Terminating Sanctions Or, In The Alternative, Evidentiary Sanctions Or Issue Sanctions

HEARING DATE: 10/2/2020

On March 4, 2014, American filed an action against numerous defendants, including Shores, LLC, but not including Redrock Security and Cabling (“Redrock”) for foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. On May 2, 2014, Shores, LLC filed a cross-complaint against several defendants but not Redrock. On March 16, 2016, American filed a cross-complaint against Redrock and other defendants. Shores, LLC is not a party to the March 2016 cross-complaint filed by American against Redrock.

Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Redrock brings a motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative evidentiary and issue sanctions against Defendant Shores, LLC. Redrock argues that terminating sanctions are warranted because Shores failed to provide notice to Redrock of the removal and replacement of the fire alarm system. Redrock further argues that Shores spoliated evidence when Shores replaced the fire alarm system without notice to any party and then concealed the fact.

Legal Standard

Where a party engages in misuse of discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, terminating, or contempt sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)

“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: [¶] (a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery[;] (b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures[;] (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense[;] (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery[;] (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery[;] (f) Making an evasive response to discovery [;] (g) [d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery[;] (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery[;] [or] (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 (emphasis added).)

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).) “Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).)

“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223 [citing R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497].) “[T]he intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process.” (Ibid.)

Evidentiary objections and motion to strike

There are four objections to O’Dell Declaration; Objections nos. 1-4, OVERRULED.

There are 52 objections to the Levine declaration.

Objection nos. 2-8 ,12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26-28, 30, 31-32, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47 – SUSTAINED

Objection nos. 9, 10, 13, 16, 19 , 21, 35, 37, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 – OVERRULED.

Objection no. 1, sustained in part as to lines 3:6-10

Objection no. 11, sustained in part as to 4:23-26

Objection no. 24, sustained in part as to “sent a self-serving and factually inaccurate.”

Objection no. 29, sustained in part as to 8:25-9:1.

Objection no. 33, sustained in part as to 9:18-19.

Objection no. 34, sustained in part as to 9:24-10:2.

Objection no. 43, sustained in part as to “and after American . . . Shores environment” and “undertake proper repairs to comply with HUD’s notice to.”

Objection no. 50, sustained as to “properly.”

Objection no. 53, sustained as to 13:9-12.

Redrock requests that the Court strike pages 21-24 of the opposition to the motion for sanctions. Redrock argues that Shores violated Judge Tillman’s October 25, 2018 order denying Shores’ order which permitted Shores to file a 20-page opposition. (See 10/25/2018 at 2 [“Shores, LLC orally requests to allow it to exceed the page limit for its opposition to the aforementioned motion. The Court allows Shores, LLC to exceed the page limit for its opposition by 5 additional pages.].). Here, the opposition is 24 pages, excluding the table of contents, notice of motion, and proof of service. Since Shores violated the October 25, 2018 order, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike page 21-24 of the opposition. The Court only considers the first 20 pages of the opposition.

Analysis

Terminating Sanctions

Shores, LLC argues that the court cannot impose a terminating sanction because Redrock has not shown that Shores violated a court order, citing New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403 (New Albertsons). Shores is incorrect and New Albertsons is distinguishable. (See Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215.) New Albertsons arose out of a party seeking to withdraw an admission made in a request for admission, arguing that their admission was a mistake. (New Albertsons 168 Cal.App.4th at 1414.) The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the admission, and after hearing a motion for reconsideration, imposed evidence sanctions. On appeal, the appellate court concluded “[t]he circumstances here involve neither the failure to comply with a discovery obligation nor the destruction of particularly probative evidence.” (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court The court then distinguished the conduct present in that case from the conduct in Williams, explaining that the “trial court made several factual findings ‘[i]n a detailed minute order,’ including findings that the plaintiff had intentionally caused the destruction of critical evidence and that the loss was highly prejudicial to the defendant. The trial court concluded that lesser sanctions would not cure the harm and that a terminating sanction was appropriate.” (Id. at 1433 [quoting Williams 167 Cal.App.4th at 1222.)

As explained by the court in Williams, “A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams 167 Cal.App.4th at 1223 [citing R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497].) “[T]he intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process.” (Id.) Spoliation occurs when evidence is destroyed or significantly altered or when there is a failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in current or future litigation. (Hernandez v. Garcetti “First party spoliation occurs when the spoliator is a party to the lawsuit. Third party spoliation occurs when the spoliator is not a party to the action.” (Strong v. State of California (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1439, 1458 [citing Lueter v. State of California (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1293].)

“A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must make an initial prima facie showing that the responding party in fact destroyed evidence that had a substantial probability of damaging the moving party's ability to establish an essential element of his claim or defense. [Citations.]”. (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227.) Once the moving party has done so, the burden shifts to opposing party to show that there is no prejudice from the destruction of evidence. (See id. at 1225-1226.)

Pursuant to Section 2023.030(d), the court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d) [emphasis added].)

Courts can only impose terminating sanctions against parties. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d). Redrock seeks a terminating sanction dismissing all claims Shores has pled that are related to the fire alarm system installed by Redrock. Cross-complaints are obviously separate pleadings from complaints. (See Bertero v. National General Corp. Here, Redrock has failed to identity any complaint or cross-complaint in which it is a party to a suit with or against Shores, LLC. Redrock is a Cross-Defendant in the cross-complaint filed by American/BCEGZ. Shores, LLC is not a party to that cross-complaint. Furthermore, Redrock is not a party to the March 4, 2014 suit between American and Shores, LLC nor the May 2, 2014 cross-complaint between Shores, LLC and American and other defendants. Shores, LLC is a third-party that is not in direct litigation with Redrock. Here, Redrock seeks a terminating sanction against Shores, LLC in an action that it is not a party to. Since terminating sanctions are only proper against parties in the same action, the motion is DENIED.