This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2019 at 10:36:31 (UTC).

KENNETH SPENCER ET AL VS JANET JOYCE BOBBITT

Case Summary

On 12/18/2015 KENNETH SPENCER filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against JANET JOYCE BOBBITT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MAURICE A. LEITER and ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4638

  • Filing Date:

    12/18/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MAURICE A. LEITER

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SPENCER KENNETH

JOHNSON DEBRA

JOHNSON AUDREY

ROY NYKEA

BEAUDION CLATIE

Defendants and Respondents

BOBBITT JANET JOYCE

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

BYRON LAROY BOBBITT DOE 1

BOBBITT BYRON LAROY DOE 1

BYRON LAROY BOBBITT (DOE 1)

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ELDER & SPENCER LLP

ELDER MARGARET ANN

 

Court Documents

Summons

12/18/2015: Summons

Notice of Status Conference and Order

6/14/2017: Notice of Status Conference and Order

Legacy Document

6/23/2017: Legacy Document

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

8/3/2017: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Case Management Statement

8/24/2017: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

9/8/2017: Minute Order

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

3/22/2018: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Minute Order

5/14/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/22/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/27/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/14/2019: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

4/23/2019: Case Management Statement

Notice

5/16/2019: Notice

Minute Order

5/21/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

5/22/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

5/22/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

6/28/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

6/6/2017: Minute Order

62 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/28/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by KENNETH SPENCER (Plaintiff); CLATIE BEAUDION (Plaintiff); DEBRA JOHNSON (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Status Conference (re Status of Probate Case) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions Against Defense Counsel Noreen Fontaine and Self-Represented Defendant Byron Laroy Bobbitt for Failure to Appear on 5/21/19) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Trial Setting Conference; Status ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by KENNETH SPENCER (Plaintiff); CLATIE BEAUDION (Plaintiff); DEBRA JOHNSON (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by KENNETH SPENCER (Plaintiff); CLATIE BEAUDION (Plaintiff); DEBRA JOHNSON (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Status Conference (re Status of Probate Case) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Interrogatories and Demands for Production; Order to Deem RFAs Admitted; Request for Sanctions) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
95 More Docket Entries
  • 05/23/2017
  • Stipulation and Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2016
  • Proof of Service; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by KENNETH SPENCER (Plaintiff); CLATIE BEAUDION (Plaintiff); DEBRA JOHNSON (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2015
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PROVIDE HABITABILE DWELLING; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC604638    Hearing Date: August 18, 2020    Dept: A

# 9. Kenneth Spencer, et al. v. Janet Joyce Bobbitt

Case No.: BC604638

Matter on calendar for: motion for terminating sanctions

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Plaintiffs Kenneth Spencer, Clatie Beaudion, Debra Johnson, Nykea Roy, and Audrey Johnson allege defendant Janet Joyce Bobbitt negligently maintained a multi-unit residential building in which they resided. Janet Bobbitt owned the building, while defendant Byron Bobbitt, Joyce’s son, managed the property. Byron Bobbitt recently obtained counsel.

    The Complaint alleges the following causes of action:

  1. Failure to provide habitable dwelling;

  2. Breach of the covenant and right to quiet enjoyment and possession of the property;

  3. Nuisance; and

  4. negligence

    Plaintiffs move for terminating sanctions against Byron Bobbitt, striking his answer and entering default against him, for Bobbitt’s failure to provide discovery responses as ordered by the Court.

  1. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010 defines misuses of the discovery process, in relevant part: “(c) [e]mploying a discovery method in a manner that causes unwarranted annoyance… and expense; (d) [f]ailing to respond to an authorized method of discovery;” and “(g) [d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” A court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions upon a party misusing the discovery process. (See C.C.P., §§ 2023.030, 2030.290(c), 2030.300(e), 2031.300(c), 2031.310(e), and 2033.290(e).)

Under Code Civil Procedure § 2023.030(d), terminating sanctions include: (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, or (4) an order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

Terminating sanctions for discovery abuses are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application. (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191.) Further, terminating sanction should only be used when the trial court concludes that lesser sanctions would not bring about the compliance of the offending party. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Usually, a party’s disobedience of an order compelling discovery must come before an order imposing terminating sanctions. (Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1015, 1021.) Courts have inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers that include the inherent power to control the litigation before them. (Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377.)

  1. Analysis

    On October 12, 2018, plaintiffs propounded Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One), request for production (Set One), and requests for admission. Bobbitt failed to respond.

    On May 21, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motions to compel discovery and deem requests for admission as admitted. The Court’s order stated: “The matters specified in the request for admission are deemed admitted. Byron Bobbitt must provide responses, without objection, to the interrogatories and request for production within 20 days.” Bobbitt has yet to comply with this Order.

    In opposition to the instant motion, Bobbitt states he will provide the required discovery before the hearing, and requests that the Court impose at most a reduced monetary sanction. (Opp. at 2.)

    The Court is unaware whether Bobbitt has now provided responses to the discovery in compliance with the Court’s May 21, 2019 Order.

  2. Ruling

    The Court will address the merits of this motion when the Court learns whether Bobbitt has now complied with the Court’s May 21, 2019 Order.

    Next dates:

    Notice: