On 04/22/2016 TERESIJA SIGMUND filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DARLINGTON VILLA HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
NANCY L. NEWMAN
III HARRY H. WILLIAMSON
WILLIAMSON HARRY H. III
DARLINGTON VILLA HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION
DARLINGTON VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
SBS LIEN SERVICES
COHEN BARRY E.
FERRANTE JOSEPH M.
WOOD CARY L. ESQ
WILSON ESQ. JASON S.
KOLETSKY MANCINI FELDMAN & MORROW
GOWER RICHARD S.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
LUSSIER KEVIN R. VEATCH CARLSON LLP
HARTSUYKER. STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO
LUSSIER KEVIN R.VEATCH CARLSONLLP
WOOD CARY L.
8/10/2016: Minute Order
12/6/2016: Notice of Ruling
4/12/2017: Minute Order
3/13/2018: Minute Order
5/23/2019: Minute Order
at 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Order (Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel); Filed by TERESIJA SIGMUND (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Teresija Sigmund)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Trial Set) -Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department WEP, Nancy L. Newman, Presiding; Conference-Case Management - Trial SetRead MoreRead Less
Civil DepositRead MoreRead Less
Receipt (CIVIL DEPOSIT $150.00 JURY FEES ); Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Teresija Sigmund (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-09-12 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department WEP, Nancy L. Newman, Presiding; Conference-Case Management - Held-ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2016-08-10 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Teresija Sigmund (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by Teresija Sigmund (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Notice (OF LIMITED SCOPE REPRESENTATION ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: SC125743 Hearing Date: April 23, 2021 Dept: P
Teresija Sigmund v. Darlington Villa Home Owners, Case No. SC125743
Hearing Date April 23, 2021
Defendant’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Written Discovery (UNOPPOSED)
On January 15, February 10, and December 23, 2020 defendant served plaintiff with various discovery requests, including requests for production of documents, form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for admission. Plaintiff responded to the January and February discovery on May 29, 2020 and provided further responses on October 8, 2020. Defendant claims these responses were deficient and contained improper objections. To date, plaintiff has not responded to the December 23 RFPs.
Defendant moves to compel further responses.
Information is discoverable if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546. Material that is inadmissible at trial is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to the other evidence that would be admissible. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2017.010. Discovery statutes are construe broadly. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-378.
Defendant’s special interrogatories numbers 17, 18, and 19 requested that plaintiff identify all photographs and/or documents discussed at plaintiff’s deposition which allegedly supported her claim of damage to personal property. Separate Statement Special Interrogatories pgs. 2-4. Plaintiff referred to all photographs already produced prior and since the deposition. Defendant states there are more photographs that plaintiff referred to in her deposition but has not yet produced. Id. at pgs. 2-3. Plaintiff’s response is insufficient—plaintiff must specify which of the already-produced photographs are responsive to the interrogatories. Additionally, plaintiff must either identify further relevant photographs in her possession but not yet produced or else explicitly state under oath those photographs do not exist.
Plaintiff’s response to special interrogatory no. 19 – which requests documents related to plaintiff’s damage claim – is also insufficient. Plaintiff states “The documents speak for themselves, such as experts estimate, etc.” Id. at pg. 3-4. Plaintiff must provide a more specific response, clearly identifying the documents alluded to.
Defendant requests a further response to form interrogatory No. 17.1, which asks whether the response to each request for admission is qualified or unqualified. Plaintiff was nonresponsive, stating “[t]he reason that no details are provided is because no details have been given to plaintiff. Plaintiff is current or early on HOA fees but yet is being foreclosed on with allegedly owing thousands of dollars without explanation but fees and violations without explanation. Plaintiff can’t provide what defendants fail to explain[.]” Separate statement form interrogatories pg. 2. This response does not address the interrogatory. Plaintiff must provide a further response, stating directly and clearly whether her RFA admissions and denials are qualified or unqualified.
Requests for Production
Defendant’s RFP seeks all documents which constitute payments from plaintiff to her attorney. Plaintiff objects on privilege grounds but estimates she has paid between $35,000 to $50,000 to date. Separate statement RFP pg. 2.
Generally, the deliberate injection of a communication with counsel into a case waives the attorney-client privilege[.] Transamerica Title Insurance Company v. Superior Court (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1047, 1053. Waiver does not occur, however, if the protected communication is not itself tendered in issue, but instead simply represents one of several forms of indirect evidence in the matter. Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 653. Testimony of an attorney is adequate evidence to support an award for attorney’s fees, even absent time records or evidence of direct payments. Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.
Here, plaintiff’s direct payments to her attorney are privileged. The question is whether she waived that privilege by seeking to recover attorney’s fees in this action. Her payments to her attorney are not directly at issue here, they are merely one of several forms of evidence that could show the amount of fees she incurred. Her attorney’s testimony as to hours worked and fees received, per Martino, would be equally valid evidence. Defendants therefore do not need to have access to her bills. Thus, following Mitchell, the court will not deem the privilege waived, and the motion is DENIED as to the Requests for Production.
The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, per the above terms. No sanctions will be granted since, although plaintiff’s discovery responses were in some cases inadequate, the evidence shows that plaintiff attempted to respond in good faith.
DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.
Case Number: SC125743 Hearing Date: January 27, 2021 Dept: P
Sigmund v. Darlington Villa Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. et al., Case No. SC125743
Hearing Date January 27, 2021
Ex Parte Application to Enforce Court Order
On December 17, 2020, after an evidentiary hearing, the court ordered plaintiff to allow defendant to enter her apartment to perform emergency repairs to prevent the leakage from plaintiff’s unit from causing a fire or other significant damage in the electrical room below her unit. Plaintiff has repeatedly refused to allow entry, despite numerous court appearances and representations to the court that she would allow access. Plaintiff has since appealed the court’s order. Defendant moves ex parte to enforce the order despite the pending appeal.
An injunction designed to restrain illegal conduct or halt a particular condition is prohibitory, not mandatory. Oliye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1048. A prohibitory injunction is not stayed by an appeal. City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 482.
The order is prohibitory in nature. Though it requires plaintiff change ongoing conduct (ceasing to block access to her unit and bathroom in Unit 4A), the order’s overall effect is to restrain plaintiff from continuing to wrongfully prevent defendant from performing repairs necessary for the safety of plaintiff and her neighbors. As a prohibitory injunction, the order is not stayed by plaintiff’s appeal. The application is GRANTED.
At the hearing on January 25, 2021 the court requested defendant HOA to craft a more narrowly tailored order, granting access only to Unit 4A (not Unit 4, also owned by plaintiff) and its bathroom, so as to address some of plaintiff’s concerns, while still allowing repairs to the leak and protecting the building and its residents from the danger posed by a possible electrical fire. The court notes the independent expert appointed by the court opined the water damage from plaintiff’s unit posed a hazard. The plaintiff’s expert also opined water damage from plaintiff’s unit needed to be repaired, as well as repairs to the roof.
DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.
Case Number: SC125743 Hearing Date: July 14, 2020 Dept: P
Teresa Sigmund v. Darlington Villa et al., Case No. SC125743
Hearing Date July 14, 2020
Maria A. Giragossian’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Teresija Sigmund
Counsel filed the required judicial council forms – MC050, MC051 and MC052. Counsel indicates she served her client personally and viaU.S. mail but has not filed a proof of service indicating the other parties were served. When a motion to be relieved as counsel is filed, California Rule of Court rule 3.1362(d) requires the notice of motion, motion, declaration, and proposed order be served on “all other parties who have appeared in the case.” The motion cannot be granted until service is completed.
Additionally, counsel does not clarify the nature of the “irreparable breach” in the attorney-client relationship that gives rise to this motion. The court will hold an in camera hearing via court call so that counsel can explain why this motion is being made after proof of service is provided.
The motion is CONTINUED pending a proof of service and scheduling of a virtual hearing date.
IN LIGHT OF THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND ORAL ARGUMENTS VIA COURT CALL.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases