Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 19:38:14 (UTC).

BARBARA DONAHUE VS DARCI CANDIDA MOBLEY WRIGHT

Case Summary

On 08/30/2016 BARBARA DONAHUE filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DARCI CANDIDA MOBLEY WRIGHT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6336

  • Filing Date:

    08/30/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DONAHUE BARBARA

Defendants

THE CANDID MOBLEY REVOCABLE TRUST

WRIGHT DARCI CANDIDA MOBLEY

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY

CSC

STATE FARM

 

Court Documents

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

8/30/2016: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Proof of Service by Mail

9/7/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

9/7/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Unknown

9/7/2018: Unknown

Proof of Service by Mail

9/7/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

3/19/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/22/2019
  • Writ of Execution ((Los Angeles)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2018
  • Notice (REJECT OF ABSTRACT. THE NAME YOU HAVE LISTED AS THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR #3 DOES NOT MATCH THE COURTS RECORDS EXACTLY. YOU ARE MISSING THE EXECUTOR OF E. DONAHUE ); Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Barbara Donahue (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Proof of Service by Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Proof of Service by Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Proof of Service by Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Request For Copies; Filed by Barbara Donahue (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
160 More Docket Entries
  • 08/30/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Barbara Donahue (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Order-Court Fee Waiver (As to Barbara Donahue ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Request-Waive Court Fees; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Notice (OF RELATED CASE ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC126336    Hearing Date: January 07, 2021    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Barbara Donahue v. Darci Candida Mobley Wright

CASE NO.: SC126336

MOTIONS: Motions to Compel Responses to RFAs Set Nos. 1 and 2 (motion no. 1 and 2, res id. 016381029605 and 456526815325) (unopposed)

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatory (17.1) (res id. 665978733975, 567112729374) (unopposed) (hearing date: 1/8/21)

HEARING DATE: 1/7/2021 and 1/8/21

Legal Standard

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admissions (RFAs), “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(b).) “The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).) The motion will be denied if the court finds that the party upon whom the requests have been served has provided a response that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220. Discovery sanctions are mandatory “on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2033.280.) Requests for sanctions must “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2023.40.)

When a party fails to respond to interrogatories, the requesting party may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) A party that fails to respond to interrogatories “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)

Analysis

Cross-Complainant Candida Mobley Wright, individually and as Trustee, seeks an order compelling Cross-Defendant Barbara Donahue to serve verified responses to Cross-Complainants Requests For Admission (“RFAs”), Set No. 2 (RFA’s #’s 68—99) in her individual capacity, without objection within 20 days. Cross-Complainant also seeks an order compelling Donahue to serve verified responses to Cross-Complainants RFAs, Set No. 2 (RFA’s #’s 68—99) in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Elizabeth Donahue, without objection within 20 days. The motions are brought under Civil Procedure § 2033.280(b) and (c), § 2030.290(b) and (c), § 2023.010(d) and (i).

Cross-Complainant has filed a motion seeking to compel the responses to the RFAs but is not seeking to deem the RFAs admitted. On June 1, 2020, Cross-Complainant served RFAs on Donahue in her individual capacity. (See generally Exs. A and B.) The responses were due in July 2020; however, Cross-Complainant provided extensions to respond to the discovery. (See Geibel Decl. ¶ 8.) The responses were due on October 23, 2020. (Ibid.) Here, Donahue has failed to oppose this motion and has failed to serve responses prior to the hearing on this motion thereby waiving objections. Therefore, the motions to compel responses to the RFAs are GRANTED. Donahue is to serve responses, in her individual capacity, and separately in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Elizabeth Donahue, without objection, within 20 days of this order.

Form Interrogatory 17.1 is the follow-up to the RFAs propounded by Cross-Complainant. (See Ex. C and D to Geibel Decl.)[1] As with the corresponding RFAs, Cross-Defendants have failed to provide responses to form interrogatory 17.1. The responses were due in July 2020; however, Cross-Complainant provided extensions to respond to the discovery. (See Geibel Decl. ¶ 8.) The responses were due on October 23, 2020. (Ibid.) Here, Donahue, in both her individual capacity and her capacity as the executor, has failed to oppose this motion. The motion to compel responses is GRANTED. Responses are due within 20 days of this order.

Cross-Complainant requests sanctions against Donahue in her individual capacity and in her capacity as the Executor of the Estate of Elizabeth Donahue in the total amount of $3,500 as to the four motions to compel. Sanctions are mandatory against the party that necessitating a motion under section 2033.280. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) As to the form interrogatory, sanctions are mandatory against the party that necessitating this motion unless that party acted with substantially justification or the Court finds that there are circumstances that make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).) Donahue, in both of her capacities, necessitated this motion by failing to timely respond to the RFAs, and there was not justification for her refusal to respond to the interrogatory. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,240 (or $560 per motion). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of this order.


[1] No. 17.1 asks, “Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission” provide “(a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.”

Case Number: SC126336    Hearing Date: July 08, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Barbara Donahue v. Darci Candida Mobley Wright

CASE NO.: SC126336

MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order (labeled as a Motion to Quash all Interrogatories and Deposition and to Enjoin Further Such Action Until After the Set Aside Hearing)

HEARING DATE: 7/8/2020

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

On April 6, 2020, Defendant served discovery requests on Plaintiff, including Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, Requests for Admission (followed by a Form Interrogatory 17.1) and a deposition notice setting the deposition of Plaintiff for June 16, 2020. (See M. Geibel Decl. ¶¶ 5-9.) On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “motion to quash Defendant’s service of all interrogatories and deposition and to enjoin further such actions until after the set aside hearing with leave to amend.”

LEGAL STANDARD

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(b).)

ANALYSIS

On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “motion to quash Defendant’s service of all interrogatories and deposition and to enjoin further such actions until after the set aside hearing with leave to amend.” Plaintiff states that she has already supplied Defense counsel with interrogatories and has sat for a deposition. The Court treats this motion as a motion for a protective order. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.020, 2030.090.)

Plaintiff has failed to show that she satisfied the meet and confer requirements for a protective order limiting discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a) [This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”].) Furthermore, “the party opposing discovery has an obligation to supply the basis for this determination.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.) “A pro per litigant is held to the same restrictive procedural rules as an attorney.” (Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s statement regarding having “already suppl[i]ed Defense counsel with interrogatories” and having already sat for a deposition is disingenuous. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is referring to discovery from 2008 in case no. SC100994. (See Opp. 10:11-16, 12:1-8.) Here, Plaintiff argues that asking her to respond to discovery is unduly burdensome and oppressive but does not give reasons to support this position. While Plaintiff generally identifies the discovery that she does not want to answer, she does not provide the specific discovery she opposes with her motion. Plaintiff has also not explained why the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.” (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the issuance of a protective order, therefore, the motion for a protective order is DENIED.

In the opposition, Defendant seeks discovery sanctions in the form of issue and evidentiary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030. (See opp. 12:13-13:7.) Section 2023.030 provides “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose” several forms of discovery sanctions for abuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) Defendant should file a separate motion for this request.

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $3,660.00. (Geibel Decl. ¶22.) Defendant argues that the monetary sanctions are justified against Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.090(d), 2031.060(h), and 2033.080(d) arguing that all of these sections provide for sanctions for the filing of a discovery motion without substantial justification. In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not entitled to sanctions but does not explain the reasoning behind this conclusion. Defendants are entitled to sanctions for opposing Plaintiff’s unsuccessful motion for a protective order. Therefore, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $2,500.00 payable within 30 days. Plaintiff is ordered to respond to discovery within 20 days and to cooperate with Defendant in arranging for her deposition within 30 days.

CASE NAME: Barbara Donahue v. Darci Candida Mobley Wright

CASE NO.: SC126336

MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (labeled as a Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473))

Background

On March 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment.

Legal Standard

A court may reconsider a prior ruling if the party affected provides notice within 10 days of the order it seeks reconsideration of “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a).) “[F]acts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not ‘new or different.’” (In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 [citing Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690].)

Analysis

On, March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside judgment granted by the Court on March 6, 2020. The court treats this as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

In their opposition, Defendant argues that the Court should not consider this motion for reconsideration because Plaintiff has not complied with Civil Code section 1008(a). Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to present the court with an affidavit. Here, Plaintiff presents her motion in the form of an affidavit because Plaintiff include the language “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.” (Mot. at 4:7-8.; see also Civ. Code. § 2015.5(b).) The Court continues with its analysis of the motion.

Plaintiff takes issue with the Court’s conclusion “that Defendant was not served and that Plaintiff submitted a fraudulent proof of service” and its ruling in favor of Defendant when the Court vacated default and default judgment. (3/6/2020 Minute Order.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s counsel improperly cited a case during the March 6, 2020 hearing, arguing that the case was Caldwell instead of Coldwell and that the case was actually Caldwell v. Coppola, 219 Cal.App.3d 858. Plaintiff argues that the facts with respect to the proof of service with Plaintiff’s case were different than the facts of Coppola. In opposition, Defendant argues that the Caldwell decision is not an exception limited to its facts and was not mis-quoted at the March 6, 2020 hearing. Defendant provides evidence of the hearing in the form of the Court reporter’s transcript. (See Ex. B to Geibel Decl. ISO Opp.) Plaintiff’s fails to meaningfully distinguish Caldwell. Here, Plaintiff does not present new facts or law.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that “Plaintiff’s disability was triggered by Defense counsel’s behavior and she was therefore, unable to request a continuance, or argue against their false assertions of the law. Per the ADA, Plaintiff is entitled to additional time and assistance during a court proceeding.” ADA requests must be made at least 5 days prior to the hearing, or at the very least during the hearing. (See CRC Rule 1.100.) Here, Plaintiff did not make an oral request for an accommodation. (See Ex. B to Geibel Decl. ISO Opp.) To the extent that Plaintiff argues that the Court should have given Plaintiff more time in the absence of a request for a reasonable accommodation, Plaintiff is mistaken. “The court is not a mind reader.” (In re Malcolm D. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) A request must be made. The request may be made on “form approved by the Judicial Council [MC-410], in another written format, or orally.” (CRC Rule 1.100(c)(1).)

Since Plaintiff has not presented this court with new facts, circumstances, or law, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

ADA request

To the extent that Plaintiff is submitting a written request for an ADA accommodation for all future court hearings in this case, the “Rules of Court state that the court ‘must respond to a request for accommodation’ (subd.(e)) and ‘must inform the applicant in writing’ (subd. (e)(2)).” (Biscaro v. Stern (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 702, 708 [citing CRC Rule 1.100].)

There are only three instance in which a Court may deny a request for an accommodation. “A request for accommodation may be denied only when the court determines that: (1) The applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of this rule; (2) The requested accommodation would create an undue financial or administrative burden on the court; or (3) The requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.” (CRC Rule 1.100(f).

First, a court may deny a request if “the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of this rule.” [Footnote omitted.] (Subd. (f)(1).) Those requirements are: (1) A written or oral request for accommodation . . . . (Subd. (c)(1).) (2) The request must include a description of the accommodation and the impairment requiring accommodation; if the court finds the description inadequate, it may request additional information from the applicant. (Subd. (c)(2).) . . . (3) The request must be timely, ordinarily at least five days in advance of the need for the accommodation. (Subd. (c)(3).)” (Biscaro v. Stern

Here, Plaintiff appears to have made written request for an accommodation in her motion for reconsideration, but the Court will clarify at the hearing. The request generally mentions a disability but does not mention “the medical condition that necessitates the accommodation.” (CRC Rule 1.100(c)(2).) Furthermore, Plaintiff requests additional time and assistance for her disability, however, this description is vague. The Court is unclear as to what Plaintiff means by additional assistance. The Court concludes that the description is inadequate and requests additional information from the applicant. To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting additional assistance to prepare for the hearing, the Court does not and cannot provide legal advice to litigants. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity at the hearing to further describe the nature of the accommodation requested and the impairment requiring accommodation.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CSC is a litigant

Latest cases where FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, A CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where State Farm Ins Co is a litigant