This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 18:43:23 (UTC).

SEPULVEDA INVESTMENT SERVICES VS. SUZANNE E. BUTLER

Case Summary

On 12/06/2016 SEPULVEDA INVESTMENT SERVICES filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against SUZANNE E BUTLER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1728

  • Filing Date:

    12/06/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SEPULVEDA INVESTMENT SERVICES LLC

Defendants

DOES 1-20 INCLUSIVE

BUTLER SUZANNE E. AS TRUSTEE OF

HEMINGWAY REALTY

HEMINGWAY STEPHEN DBA HEMINGWAY REALTY

BUTLER BUTLER E.

Cross Defendant

KHAN MAC UMER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

M. CANDICE BRYNER

Defendant Attorneys

CARLSON MARK CHRISTOPHER

VOSS DAVID CRAIN JR

Cross Defendant Attorney

BRYNER MARY CANDICE

 

Court Documents

Complaint

12/6/2016: Complaint

Notice

4/13/2017: Notice

Notice

4/27/2017: Notice

Case Management Statement

6/12/2017: Case Management Statement

Unknown

6/12/2017: Unknown

Other -

6/28/2017: Other -

Minute Order

8/31/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

9/28/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/20/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/29/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/29/2017: Unknown

Cross-Complaint

1/3/2018: Cross-Complaint

Answer

9/20/2018: Answer

Opposition

3/27/2019: Opposition

Exhibit List

3/29/2019: Exhibit List

Minute Order

4/3/2019: Minute Order

Request for Dismissal

5/10/2019: Request for Dismissal

Notice

5/13/2019: Notice

122 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • Notice ( of Entry of Judgment or Order); Filed by Mac Umer Khan (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an Order Continuing Trial) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application of Defendant, Suzanne E. Butl...) of 05/24/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application of Defendant, Suzanne E. Butl...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Ex Parte Application ( for an Order Continuing Trial and Reopening Discovery); Filed by Butler E. Butler (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Opposition ( to Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For Order Compelling Inspection of Property and Permitting Inspection to Occur) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For Order Compelling Inspecti...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion - Other (for Sanctions is advanced to this day on the Court's motion and continued to/) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
159 More Docket Entries
  • 01/24/2017
  • Default Entered; Filed by Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • Affidavit (of Due Diligence)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2016
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC071728    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, June 30, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 3

PROCEEDINGS

Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC v. Suzanne E. Butler, et al.

YC071728

1. Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant with Supplemental Demand for Inspection of Property

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant with Supplemental Demand for Inspection of Property is granted. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Meet and Confer

Plaintiff set forth a meet and confer declaration in substantial compliance with CCP § 2031.310(b)(2). (Decl., Candice Bryner, ¶¶ 12-25.)

Motion to Compel Inspection of Property

Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(d) states: “A party may demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party's behalf, to enter on any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.” Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.050(b) also states that a party may propound a supplemental demand for inspection once after the initial setting of a trial date.

A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following: a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

If a demanding party believes the responding party responded inadequately, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).)

On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff served a supplemental demand for inspection of the subject property. (Decl., Bryner, ¶ 11.) The inspection demand may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action because it may assist in Plaintiff’s expert’s completion of their damages analysis. The inspection may be helpful to ascertain the current condition of the property as well as to assess any potential damages based on waste, diminution of value, and costs of repair. Defendant objected and has not allowed the inspection.

Defendant filed and served an opposition to this motion. However, the opposition did not set forth any substantive grounds to support the refusal to allow inspection. Instead, the opposition simply requested a continuance based on the Covid-19 crisis. However, the Court finds that the circumstances presented in this specific case do not warrant a continuance. There is no showing that proper social distancing measures could not be undertaken during the subject inspection. A continuance would simply act to cause further delay to the inspection.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the inspection of real property located at 2235 Sepulveda Blvd., Torrance, California is granted. Plaintiff may proceed with an inspection of the subject real property at a date and time to be agreed upon by the parties, but the inspection shall proceed no later than 30 days from this date, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. All proper social distancing measures pursuant to the State ordered guidelines are to be followed.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is hereby denied. The Court finds that considering the Covid-19 crisis, the reluctance and hesitancy to proceed with the inspection of the property without a Court order may be sufficient circumstances to warrant declining to impose sanctions upon Defendant.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, June 30, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 3

PROCEEDINGS

Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC v. Suzanne E. Butler, et al.

YC071728

2. Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Sepulveda Investment Services, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents is granted, in part. Plaintiff and Defendant’s respective request for sanctions are denied.

Meet and Confer

Plaintiff set forth a meet and confer declaration in substantial compliance with CCP § 2031.310(b)(2). (Decl., Candice Bryner, ¶ 14-17.)

Motion to Compel

Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(d) states: “A party may demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party's behalf, to enter on any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.” Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.050(b) also states that a party may propound a supplemental demand for inspection once after the initial setting of a trial date.

A party responding to an inspection demand shall respond to each demand with one of the following: a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).

As to Requests for Production of Documents numbers 19, 20, 23, and 25, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is granted, in part. Requests 19, 20, 23, and 25 are designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding a relevant issue in this case: Suzanne Butler’s (who is the trustee of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Suzanne E. Butler Trust) relationship with the purported tenant on the subject real property.

Recently, discovery gleaned information that the real property at the heart of this dispute is allegedly subject to a lease. Thereafter, Plaintiff propounded additional discovery to obtain facts and documents regarding Ms. Butler’s relationship with the tenant CPM. Butler testified at her deposition that Zoltan Katinszky probably owns 100% of CPM. (Plaintiff’s Ex. 6, p. 22:16-19). However, former Defendant Steve Hemingway, who is also a tenant on the property, testified that Butler and Katinszky are 50/50 partners. (Bryner Dec., ¶ 11, Ex. 7, lines 8-14).

Requests 19-20, 23, and 25 seek documents relating to the agreements between Butler and CPM and/or Katinszky relating to the sale of her ownership interest in CPM, as well as documents evidencing the consideration Katinszky provided in exchange for Butler’s interest in CPM. The Court finds that the documents requested by Plaintiff may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Namely, the documents may be relevant to uncover the relationship between Butler, Katinszky, and CPM. This relationship is relevant because the tenancy status of CPM has now placed a major hurdle into any sale of the subject property. The Court finds that the documents requested are not overly broad or vague, and are reasonably particularized.

Defendant also objected on the ground of financial privacy. “The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, §1.) Protection of informational privacy is the provision’s central concern.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552. “[W]hen a discovery request seeks information implicating the constitutional right of privacy, to order discovery simply upon a showing that the Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017.010 test for relevance has been met is an abuse of discretion.” Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 556 (citations omitted). The confidential financial affairs of third persons are entitled to privacy. This may limit but does not necessarily preclude discovery. See, Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 658; See also Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 595-96.

In Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37, the California Supreme Court “established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. . . . . The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552 (citations omitted). In Hill, the Court “explained that not ‘every assertion of a privacy interest under article I, section 1 must be overcome by a “compelling interest.” . . . . A ‘“compelling interest”’ is still required to justify ‘an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy.’” Id. at 556.

Disclosure depends upon balancing the need for discovery against the need for confidentiality. “Courts must instead place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and against that showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies, as Hill requires.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.

In balancing Plaintiff’s asserted need for all the information and documents at issue in the subject document requests related to the relationship between Butler, Katinszky, and CPM, against the need for confidentiality, the Court finds that moving party has established that the need for the information outweighs the privacy interest at issue. In addition, any release of sensitive confidential information can be protected by the parties entering into a protective order to allow for the redaction of any such information.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is granted, in part. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to Requests 19, 20, 23, and 25. However, any such further responses are to be governed by the terms of a protective order which is to be agreed upon by the parties. The terms of the protective order are to set forth that Suzanne E. Butler is entitled to redact information related to specific bank account numbers and other similar sensitive information from the further production. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses governed by a protective order within 30 days of this date.

Plaintiff and Defendant’s respective requests for sanctions are denied.