Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC637218 Hearing Date: August 18, 2021 Dept: 73

Mayra Rivas v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Counsel for Plaintiff/opposing\r\nparty: Timothy R. Windham, Natalya\r\nSamsonova (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP)

\r\n\r\n

Counsel for Defendant/moving\r\nparty: Raymond Ghermezian, Esq. (Raymond\r\nGhermezian APC)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Motion to\r\ncompel further (filed\r\n04/13/2021)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE\r\nRULING

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The motion is GRANTED. The requests\r\nfor sanctions are DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Mayra Rivas sued current Defendants County of Los\r\nAngeles (“County”), County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services\r\n(“Department”) for unsafe premises/dangerous condition, i.e., a chair located\r\nat 3833 S. Vermont Avenue, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90037. On May 17,\r\n2016, the chair allegedly broke, causing Plaintiff to fall on the premises\r\nwhile sitting. Exposition Park West Asset Leasing Corporation (“Exposition”) is the lessor of the building; the\r\nCounty is the sole lessee of the building.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action against\r\nDefendants, alleging:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nC/A 1: Liability for Dangerous\r\nCondition of Public Property (GC 835, et seq.)

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nC/A 2: Vicarious Liability for the\r\nWrongful Acts or Omissions by Public Entity Employees and/or Retention of Unfit\r\nEmployee (GC 815.2)

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nC/A 3: Premises Liability

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 13, 2017, County filed a cross-complaint\r\nagainst Exposition and Exposition’s Executive Director, Shelby Jordan (“Jordan”):

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 1: Breach of Contract (Lease and\r\nInsurance Policy Agreement)

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 2: Breach of the Implied\r\nCovenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 3: Indemnity, Contribution, and\r\nDeclaratory Relief

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 20, 2017, Plaintiff added Exposition and Jordan\r\nas Doe Defendants.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 5, 2018, Cross-Complainant County dismissed\r\nCross-Defendant Jordan.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On January 22, 2019, Cross-Complainant County filed a\r\nmotion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint, which the court\r\ngranted. On March 12, 2019, County filed its operative first amended\r\ncross-complaint, which added

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 4: Contribution

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 5: Breach of Contract (Insurance\r\nPolicy)

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 6: Specific Performance—Duty to\r\nDefend and Indemnify

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 7: Unjust Enrichment

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 8: Declaratory Relief

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On June 30, 2020, Defendant and Cross-Defendant Exposition\r\nfiled an unopposed motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, which was\r\ngranted. The motion was unopposed. On June 30, 2020, Exposition filed their\r\noperative cross-complaint against County for:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 1: Equitable Indemnification

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 2: Apportionment of Fault

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 3: Declaratory Relief

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 4: Express Indemnity

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nX-C/A 5: Comparative Negligence

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 13, 2021, County filed a Motion for Order\r\nCompelling Plaintiff to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatory (“FROG”) No. 17.1 and Special\r\nInterrogatories (“SROG”) Nos. 22 and 23 and Request for Sanctions for $2,6000.\r\nCounty argues:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiff’s responses to the following\r\nwere evasive and incomplete:

\r\n\r\n

o \r\nFROG No. 17.1(b) as to Requests for\r\nAdmission (“RFA”) Nos. 9-10, 13, 16, 18-20, 24, and 26-28

\r\n\r\n

o \r\nFROG No. 17.1(c) as to RFA Nos. 1-3,\r\n6-13, 16, 18-20, and 23-30

\r\n\r\n

o \r\nFROG No. 17.1(d) as to RFA Nos. 1-3,\r\n6-13, 16, and 18-30

\r\n\r\n

o \r\nSROG Nos. 22 and 23

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nMonetary sanctions in the amount of\r\n$2,600 are appropriate because County had to bring this motion due to Plaintiff’s\r\nwillful failure to provide complete and adequate responses.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nAlternatively, County requests the\r\nCourt to issue sanctions against Plaintiff precluding Plaintiff from making or\r\nsupporting any allegations related to RFA Nos. 9, 10, 13, 16, 18-20, 24, and\r\n26-28:

\r\n\r\n

o \r\nPlaintiff willfully failed to provide\r\ncomplete and adequate responses

\r\n\r\n

o \r\nPlaintiff disobeyed the Court’s\r\nFebruary 17, 2021 order by failing to pay the monetary sanctions ordered by the\r\nCourt

\r\n\r\n

o \r\nThe Court’s prior order for monetary\r\nsanctions has not prevented Plaintiff from abusing the discovery process

\r\n\r\n

In\r\nopposition, Plaintiff argues that:

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiff provided further responses\r\nto FROG No. 17.1 and SROGS Nos. 22 and 23 on July 12, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiff requests that no sanctions\r\nbe awarded against Plaintiff’s counsel.

\r\n\r\n

In reply, County argues that:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiff’s further responses to SROG\r\nNos. 22 and 23 are sufficient

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiff’s response to FROG No. 17.1\r\nremains deficient:

\r\n\r\n

o \r\nFROG No. 17.1(b) as to RFA Nos. 9-10

\r\n\r\n

o \r\nFROG No. 17.1(d) as to RFA Nos. 1-3,\r\n6-8, 11-13, 16, and 18-30

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiff’s counsel remains in\r\ncontempt of the Court’s February 17, 2021 order

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nCounty seeks issue sanctions\r\nprecluding Plaintiff from making or supporting claims related to RFA Nos. 9-10,\r\n13, 16, 18-20, 24, and 26-28

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nAlternatively, County seeks a Court\r\norder compelling Plaintiff to produce complete responses to FROG No. 17.1(b) as\r\nto RFA Nos. 9-10 and FROG No. 17.1(d) as to RFA Nos. 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 16, and\r\n18-30 and for an order imposing monetary sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the\r\npropounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the\r\npropounding party deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is\r\nevasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under\r\nCCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those\r\ndocuments is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without\r\nmerit or too general. (CCP § 2030.300(a).) \r\nThe responding party has the burden of justifying the objections\r\nthereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962)\r\n58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Interrogatories\r\n(FROG No. 17.1(b) and (d))

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

County seeks further responses to (1) FROG No. 17.1(b) as\r\nto RFA Nos. 9-10, 13, 16, 18-20, 24, and 26-28; (2) FROG No. 17.1(c) as to RFA\r\nNos. 1-3, 6-13, 16, 18-20, and 23-30; (3) FROG No. 17.1(d) as to RFA Nos. 1-3,\r\n6-13, 16, and 18-30; and (4) SROG Nos. 22 and 23.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 12, 2021, Plaintiff served further responses to the\r\nabove interrogatories. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Due to those further responses, only the following\r\ninterrogatories are now in dispute: (1) FROG No. 17.1(b) as to RFA Nos. 9-10,\r\nand (2) FROG No. 17.1(d) as to RFA Nos. 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 16, and 18-30. (Reply,\r\nSamsonova Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, 7.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the Court looks to the sufficiency of\r\nPlaintiff’s further responses to FROG No. 17.1(b) and (d).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

FROG No. 17.1 states:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Is your response to\r\neach request for admission served with these interrogatories an

\r\n\r\n

unqualified admission? If not, for\r\neach response that is not an unqualified admission:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(a) \r\nstate the number of the request;

\r\n\r\n

(b) \r\nState all facts upon which you base\r\nyour response;

\r\n\r\n

(c) \r\nstate the name, ADDRESSES, and\r\ntelephone numbers of PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and

\r\n\r\n

(d) \r\nidentify all DOCUMENTS and other\r\ntangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and\r\ntelephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Mot., Samsonova Decl. ¶\r\n3, Exh. A.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1. \r\nFROG No. 17.1(b)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As to FROG No. 17.1(b), RFA Nos. 9 and 10 ask Plaintiff to\r\nadmit that the subject accident did not affect Plaintiff’s employment or\r\nability to earn a living. (Mot., Samsonova Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Upon review of Plaintiff’s further responses, the Court\r\nfinds that Plaintiff’s response to 17.1(b) is insufficient, as Plaintiff\r\nprovides no facts to support her purported inability to work or earn a living.\r\n(Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A, p.5.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not objected to the\r\ninterrogatory. (Mot., Samsonova Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6, Exh. B, D; Ghermezian Decl., ¶¶ 1-3, Exh. A.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the Court grants County’s motion as to FROG\r\nNo. 17.1(b).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

2. \r\nFROG No. 17.1(d)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As to FROG No. 17.1(d), RFA Nos. 1-3, 6, and 8 ask\r\nPlaintiff to admit that she is responsible for the subject accident, and RFA\r\nNos. 7, 11-13, 16, and 18-30 ask Plaintiff to admit that she did not and is not\r\nexperiencing pain or difficulty from the subject accident. (Mot., Samsonova\r\nDecl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Upon review of Plaintiff’s further responses, the Court\r\nfinds that Plaintiff’s response to 17.1(d) is insufficient, as Plaintiff\r\nprovides insufficient information to permit the County to locate the documents\r\nand photographs. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A; Reply Samsonova Decl. ¶ 3(b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not objected to the\r\ninterrogatory. (Mot., Samsonova Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6, Exh. B, D; Ghermezian Decl., ¶¶ 1-3, Exh. A.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the Court grants County’s motion as to FROG\r\nNo. 17.1(d).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“The court may impose a monetary sanction\r\nordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any\r\nattorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including\r\nattorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ.\r\nProc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Discovery sanctions should be\r\nappropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is\r\nrequired to protect the interests of the party entitled to, but denied,\r\ndiscovery. The trial court has wide discretion in granting discovery\r\norders, and by the provisions of CCP § 2023.030, it is granted broad, though\r\nnot unlimited, discretionary powers to enforce its orders. Sanctions the court\r\nmay impose must be suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to\r\nobtain the objects of the discovery he seeks. The court, however, may not\r\nimpose sanctions which are not designed to accomplish the objects of discovery,\r\nbut to impose punishment. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991)\r\n231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487; overruled on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, fn. 4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In its motion, County requests monetary\r\nsanctions. In its reply, County requests issue sanctions.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Upon review of the parties’ papers,\r\nthe Court does not find that sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff has shown\r\nwillingness to provide adequate responses to County’s discovery. However, the Court\r\nreserves the jurisdiction to reconsider the issue of sanctions in the event\r\nthat Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court’s order regarding the instant\r\ndiscovery motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To the extent County finds fault with\r\nPlaintiff’s\r\npurported contempt of the Court’s\r\nFebruary 17, 2021 order, the County has separate remedies.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

C. \r\nConclusion and Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court grants County’s\r\nmotion. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to FROG No. 17.1(b)\r\nas to RFA Nos. 9 and 10 and FROG No. 17.1(d) as to RFA Nos. 1-3, 6-8, 11-13,\r\n16, and 18-30 within 20 days of the Court’s order, without objections.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court denies County’s\r\nrequests for monetary and issue sanctions.

\r\n\r\n

"

Case Number: BC637218    Hearing Date: October 15, 2020    Dept: 73

10/15/20Dept. 73Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presidingRIVAS v. COUNTY and related cross-actions (BC637218)Tentative ruling:   Hear argument re merits.  The court will take the matter under submission.

Ruling re Evidentiary Objections

Both of the County’s objections are denied.

Page two of the filed version of Plaintiff’s objections are missing such that the court cannot make a ruling on those. The court sustains Plaintiff’s objection #6.

Case Number: BC637218    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: 73

8/13/2020

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

MAYRA RIVAS v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. and related cross-actions (BC637218)

Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Defendant: Kevin Heffernan, Robert Rosvall (Friedenthal, Heffernan & Brown, LLP)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT (filed 6/30/2020)

TENTATIVE RULING

The unopposed motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. CCP §§ 426.50; 473(a); 576. The proposed cross-complaint lodged on 6/30/20 and served concurrently with the motion is deemed filed and served on all previously served and appearing parties as indicated on the proof of service of the document.

Cross-defendant County’s responsive pleading shall be filed and served within 15 days after notice.

Notice of ruling by moving party.