On 12/29/2017 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by BREAKWATER STUDIO LLC against THE WILLIAM WARREN GROUP in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK
BREAKWATER STUDIO LLC
DOES 1 TO 20
THE WILLIAM WARREN GROUP
5/7/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
6/19/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN L. GOLDSTEIN; [PROPOSED] ORDER
6/19/2018: NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, AND DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN L. GOLDSTEIN PURSUANT TO CCP ?430.41, IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROP
7/6/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT
7/9/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
7/11/2018: BREAKWATER STUDIOS, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
7/16/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
7/16/2018: JURY FEES POSTED
7/18/2018: REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
7/25/2018: Minute Order
7/25/2018: RULING (1) DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) MOTION TO STRIKE
7/27/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
4/19/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
12/29/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
Motion to Strike; Filed by The William Warren Group (Defendant); Storquest, Clack Company (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Filed by The William Warren Group (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by The William Warren Group (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer (to First Amended Complaint); Filed by The William Warren Group (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal (Other*Fifth cause of action for fraud only. Without prejudice)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF RULING RE DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by The William Warren Group (Defendant); Storquest, Clack Company (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:31 AM in Department 47; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-07-25 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 3; Court Order - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-05-07 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by The William Warren Group (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Breakwater Studio LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEFRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC688715 Hearing Date: February 25, 2020 Dept: 47
Breakwater Studios, LLC v. The William Warren Group individually and dba Storquest, et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Defendant William Warren Properties, Inc. dba Storquest – Hollywood/Sunset
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Breakwater Studios, LLC
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant erroneously concluded that Plaintiff had abandoned its storage unit being rented from Defendant, and Defendant disposed of Plaintiff’s property.
Defendant William Warren Properties, Inc. dba Storequest – Hollywood/Sunset moves to compel answers to its request for production, set two, and for sanctions.
Defendant William Warren Properties, Inc. dba Storequest – Hollywood/Sunset’s motion to compel answers to request for production, set two, is DENIED AS MOOT.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $60.00 against Plaintiff’s counsel of record only, Law Offices of Martin Glickfield. ($60 filing fee.) The Court will consider revising the sanctions award if Defendant’s counsel provides a basis for his request for $1,250.00 in attorney’s fees at the hearing.
Motion To Compel Responses To Request for Production of Documents (Set Two)
When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond under CCP § 2031.300(b), a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)
Here, although Defendant has labeled its motion a motion to compel, and its notice of motion also asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to answer, the motion itself makes clear that Plaintiff already answered. Therefore, Defendant appears to be requesting that the Court compel compliance with these requests, because Plaintiff “has not produced the documents agreed to be produced.” (Motion, at p. 7.) Under those circumstances, a motion to compel compliance would have been appropriate.
However, Plaintiff’s opposition indicates that Plaintiff has now served verified responses to these requests. (Declaration of Martin Glickfield ¶ 7.) Thus, there is no longer any need to compel the responses or to compel compliance with the requests. If Defendant is dissatisfied with the responses that Plaintiff has provided, the proper motion would be a motion to compel further responses, keeping in mind the 45-day jurisdictional limit for that motion. (CCP § 2031.310(c).)
Accordingly, the motion to compel responses to requests for production (set two) is DENIED as MOOT.
Defendant’s request for sanctions, which are mandatory (CCP §§ 2031.300(c); 2031.320(b)), is GRANTED in the amount of $60.00 against Plaintiff’s counsel of record only, Law Offices of Martin Glickfield. ($60 filing fee.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s failure to respond was the fault of Plaintiff. As for fees in addition to the filing fee, the Declaration of Benjamin Goldstein provides no basis for the request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,250.00. The declarant has not stated his hourly rate or indicated how many hours of work are represented in the $1250.00 total. The Court will consider revising the sanctions award if Defendant’s counsel provides this information at the hearing.
Moving party give notice, unless waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2020 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org