This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/10/2020 at 04:35:57 (UTC).

FERESHTEH BIGDELI, ET AL VS. JAY H. CHA, ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/11/2017 FERESHTEH BIGDELI filed an Other lawsuit against JAY H CHA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6360

  • Filing Date:

    04/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

ALEM ALAEDIN

BIGDELI FERESHTEH

HARRIS YASMIN

Defendants

2102 LA CANADA CREST HOMEOWNERS

CHA JAY H.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

CHULAK MICHAEL T LAW OFFICES OF

CHULAK MICHAEL T

Defendant Attorneys

PHILLIPS SPALLAS & ANGSTADT LLP

HORTON OBERRECHT KIRKPATRICK & MARTHA

HETTWER ANNA ZANE

MARTHA RICHARD

MASSEY CAROLINE GRACE

ANGSTADT TODD ALAN

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION OF PROOF OF SERVICE

10/5/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PROOF OF SERVICE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

9/9/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION TO DISMISS CASE WITH THE COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 664.1

9/9/2020: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION TO DISMISS CASE WITH THE COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 664.1

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FILED BY DEFT 2102 LA C...)

2/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FILED BY DEFT 2102 LA C...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE VACATING TRIAL DATE DUE TO SETTLEMENT)

3/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE VACATING TRIAL DATE DUE TO SETTLEMENT)

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FERESHTEH BIGDELI TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

2/18/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FERESHTEH BIGDELI TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

Notice - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES AND DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUT-OFF DATES

12/13/2019: Notice - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES AND DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUT-OFF DATES

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

12/13/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Answer

6/21/2019: Answer

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-06-01 00:00:00

6/1/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-06-01 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

7/25/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Notice of Ruling

9/21/2017: Notice of Ruling

Notice - Civil Deposit

9/21/2017: Notice - Civil Deposit

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

10/10/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation for Continuance

6/14/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation for Continuance

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-06-18 00:00:00

6/18/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-06-18 00:00:00

Notice -

7/9/2018: Notice -

Other - - CIVIL DEPOSIT

7/12/2018: Other - - CIVIL DEPOSIT

74 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/17/2020
  • Hearing11/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Order to Show Cause - Settlement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order (TO DISMISS CASE WITH THE COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 664.1); Filed by 2102 La Canada Crest Homeowners (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (OF PROOF OF SERVICE); Filed by 2102 La Canada Crest Homeowners (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Order to Show Cause - Settlement - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause - Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • Docketat 09:17 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketStipulation to Dismiss Case with the Court Retaining Jurisdiction pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.1; Filed by Alaedin Alem (Plaintiff); Fereshteh Bigdeli (Plaintiff); Yasmin Harris (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 09/09/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (OF PROOF OF SERVICE); Filed by 2102 La Canada Crest Homeowners (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
108 More Docket Entries
  • 06/12/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Jay H. Cha (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department A; Court Order - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-06-01 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Alaedin Alem (Plaintiff); Fereshteh Bigdeli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketRequest For Copies

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Alaedin Alem (Plaintiff); Fereshteh Bigdeli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Fereshteh Bigdeli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Alaedin Alem (Plaintiff); Fereshteh Bigdeli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC066360    Hearing Date: February 07, 2020    Dept: A

Bigdeli v Cha

Motion to Compel Discovery

Calendar:

08

Case No.:

EC066360

Hearing Date:

February 07, 2020

Action Filed:

April 11, 2017

Trial Date:

March 16, 2020

MP:

Defendant 2102 La Canada Crest Homeowners Association

RP:

Plaintiffs Yasmin Harris, Fereshteh Bigdeli, and Alaedin Alem

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from alleged water intrusion that occurred in Plaintiffs Yasmin Harris, Fereshteh Bigdeli, and Alaedin Alem (“Plaintiffs”)’s two units resulting from Defendants Jay H. Cha (“Cha”); and 2102 La Canada Crest Homeowners Association (“HOA” and together the “Defendants”)’s alleged failure to maintain and repair the common areas of 2102 La Canada Crest Drive, La Canada Flintridge, CA (the “Property”).

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 11, 2017, a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 22, 2017, a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on May 16, 2019, and a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on July 09, 2019. The operative complaint alleges four causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; (2) Nuisance; (3) Negligence; and (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

PRESENTATION:

HOA filed the instant motion on January 10, 2020. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on January 27, 2020, and a reply brief was received on January 31, 2020.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

HOA moves to compel discovery responses.

DISCUSSION:

Inadequate Notice – The Court finds that the Notice of Motion submitted on January 10, 2020, is inadequate on the following grounds: (1) the Notice indicates that the motion is a motion to compel, but asserts in the moving papers that an initial response has already been provided; (2) the Notice does not describe the discovery device(s) HOA seeks to compel; (3) the Notice does not indicate the specific party, individual, or entity to whom the motion is directed; (4) the Notice does not indicate the statutory basis for the motion; and (5) the Notice does not provide a dollar amount for sanctions sought. See Code of Civ. Proc. §1010; California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1110, 3.1112

The Court notes, however, that Plaintiffs’ opposition indicates that they understand the motion as “DEFENDANT HOA contends it is entitled to further responses to their interrogatories due to inconsistencies between Plaintiff Harris’ deposition and Plaintiff Harris’ written discovery”. Opposition, 2:12-15. As the matter has been fully briefed on those grounds, the Court will exercise its discretion in reviewing the merits of the motion on the basis stated in Plaintiffs’ opposition.

---

Compel Further Interrogatories – Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300 provides for a party to bring a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories where the responding party provides inadequate, incomplete, or evasive responses, or the objections are too general or without merit. The propounding party must submit a declaration under Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.040 stating facts demonstrating a good faith and reasonable effort to informally resolve each issue raised by the motion. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.300(b). The motions must be brought within 45 days of service of the responses or supplemental responses. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.300(c). Sanctions are mandatory against the party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.300(d).

Meet and Confer – Plaintiffs represent that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter due to the failure by HOA to adequately meet and confer. Opposition, 4:15-28. In making this claim, there is a citation to the case Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431. The Court has read the case cited, and it does not stand for the proposition advanced by Plaintiffs. To the extent that the case discussed the trial court exceeding its jurisdiction in awarding sanctions in a discovery dispute, the Court of Appeal did so in the context of interpreting Code of Civ. Proc. §2025(o) [1998], which provided that “If a deponent fails to answer any question . . . the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer . . . .” Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1438. Pursuant to the Code, the Court of Appeal held that an ‘incidental beneficiary’ to another party’s deposition was not entitled to receive sanctions under the 1998 version of the code, and that the trial court erred in awarding sanctions to a party that did not propound discovery. Plaintiffs’ reliance on this case is therefore misplaced, and serves as no basis to support the novel and unsupported proposition that trial courts do not have jurisdiction to hear discovery disputes prior to an ‘adequate’ meet and confer process.

As to the meet and confer process itself, the Court has reviewed both Declarations of Massey and finds that it cannot determine whether the efforts were adequate on the record before the instant motion was made. Specifically, HOA only indicates that it sent a letter on December 23, 2019, requesting supplemental responses, but the letter itself is not provided for the Court to review. While Plaintiffs represent in their opposition that HOA took no other actions to contact the Plaintiffs, that Court cannot and will not consider such representations, as they are not supported by way of any declaration or other competent evidence. In any moving paper purporting to provide evidence, such evidence must be submitted by way of declaration, submitted under penalty of perjury, and documents must be authenticated. See, e.g., Code of Civ. Proc. §2015.5; Evid. Code §1400 et seq. In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.  Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (rejecting facts supporting the production of documents that were in a separate statement because the document was not verified and did not constitute evidence).  Absent competent evidence, the Court cannot consider the putative evidence or documents presented, as the putative evidence lacks adequate foundation to serve as competent evidence in support of, or in opposition to, a motion.

The Court does note, however, that HOA does not represent that any further attempts to contact Plaintiffs occurred between December 23, 2019, and the date the motion was filed on January 10, 2020. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find that the meet and confer requirements were satisfied. However, the instant moving papers appear to have served as the purpose of the meet and confer letter (albeit at greater cost to the parties), and in Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs represent that they will provide supplemental responses to the interrogatories prior to the hearing on the matter. Opposition, 3:18-19.

As such, the Court finds that the motion is mooted upon Plaintiffs’ provision of supplemental discovery responses on or before February 07, 2020.

---

Sanctions – The Court notes that the inadequate notice for sanctions, described above, precludes their award. See Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.040. Further, sanctions are not justified under Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.300(d), as the circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust.

Accordingly, sanctions are denied.

---

RULING: below.

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant 2102 La Canada Crest Homeowners Association’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses came on regularly for hearing on February 07, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS MOOTED UPON PLAINTIFFS’ PROVISION OF SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 07, 2020; AND

SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE