This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/24/2020 at 21:10:43 (UTC).

LAKE CUNNINGHAM, ET AL. VS. PETER COELER, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/03/2017 LAKE CUNNINGHAM filed a Property - Other Eviction lawsuit against PETER COELER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7570

  • Filing Date:

    11/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

SPINETTI VANESSA AN INDIVIDUAL

CUNNINGHAM LAKE AN INDIVIDUAL

CUNNINGHAM LAKE

SPINETTI VANESSA

CUNNINGHAM AN INDIVIDUAL LAKE

SPINETTI AN INDIVIDUAL VANESSA

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

PAC PROPERTIES

COELER PETER AN INDIVIDUAL

WILLI O. ADELHEID COELER TRUST - DOE 6

COELER PETER

COELER AS TRUSTEE OF THE COELER TRUST

COELER AN INDIVIDUAL PETER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER G. SABOL

SABOL CRISTOPHER GEORGE

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

YONAN-MALEK MONICA LAW OFFICES OF

LEE LAW GROUP PC THE

LEE TED MATTHEW

MALEK-YONAN MONICA

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

LEE TED MATTHEW

MALEK-YONAN MONICA

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LAKE CUNNINGHAM'S RESPO...)

12/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LAKE CUNNINGHAM'S RESPO...)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

1/14/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT ORDER CONTINUING CIVIL, TRIA...)

4/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT ORDER CONTINUING CIVIL, TRIA...)

Separate Statement

11/19/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

11/19/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

10/30/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Notice of Ruling

10/4/2019: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/4/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGS, SET ...)

9/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGS, SET ...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING ORDER TO CONTINUE ...)

8/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING ORDER TO CONTINUE ...)

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/30/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/29/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Ruling

6/28/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Time to File Amended Comp...)

1/18/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other to Extend Time to File Amended Comp...)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/6/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Ruling

5/7/2018: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

12/10/2018: Opposition - Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

163 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/14/2020
  • Hearing08/14/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions pursuant to Section 177.5 CCP against Plaintiffs' Counsel for Failure to Appear on 02/20/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Hearing08/14/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Order to Show Cause Re: Why Case Should Not be Dismissed pursuant to Section 583.410(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure for Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Failure to Appear and Cooperate and Lack of Prosecution

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Hearing08/14/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Hearing08/14/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Hearing08/14/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to appear at the Case Management Conference on 12/06/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Hearing08/14/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Hearing08/14/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Continuance of Hearings); Filed by PETER, COELER, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to appear at the Case Management Conference on 12/06/2019) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions pursuant to Section 177.5 CCP against Plaintiffs' Counsel for Failure to Appear on 02/20/2020) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
288 More Docket Entries
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by LAKE CUNNINGHAM, an individual (Plaintiff); VANESSA SPINETTI, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other; Filed by LAKE CUNNINGHAM, an individual (Plaintiff); VANESSA SPINETTI, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketNotice (of order to show cause RE failure to comply with trial court delay reduction act)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other (VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT BY PLTF LAKE CUNNINGHAM ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • DocketOrder-Court Fee Waiver (ORDER GRANTED FOR LAKE CUNNINGHAM ); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067570    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 8

Date: 2/21/20

Case No: EC 067570 Trial Date: December 7, 2020

Case Name: Cunningham, et al. v. Coeler, et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (2)

(CCP § 2033.290)

Moving Party: Defendant Peter Coehler

Responding Party: Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti (No Opposition)

Plaintiff Lake Cunningham (No Opposition)

DECLARATION SUPPORTING MOTION:

Reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally: Exhibit D

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served: May 31, 2019

Date Responses served: October 4, 2019 Untimely

Date Motion served: November 19, 2019 Timely

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs Lake Cunningham and Vanessa Spinetti allege that they have rented an apartment in North Hollywood from defendants since April of 2014. Plaintiffs allege that upon moving in, plaintiffs recognized several habitability issues and notified defendants from mid-2014 to early 2017 about lack of heat, ongoing and unremediated water damage, and insect (flying termites) infestations. Upon the first rains of winter 2014, other habitability issues arose, such as water leaking through windows and multiple leaks in the ceiling.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants rarely responded, and took little action to fix anything, so that in late January 2017, plaintiffs called the L.A. Housing Agency, and told defendants an inspector was coming the following week. By the next morning, defendants had hired a mold-remediation team to start work, reserved hotel rooms for plaintiffs during remediation, and installed a lock-box for the workers. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants learned that in February and March of 2017 plaintiffs were telling other tenants about the habitability issues and that tenants should get together and sue defendants to force them to perform their landlord duties.

In late April 2017, defendants told plaintiffs to vacate the apartment by the end of the month, and on May 3, 2017 removed plaintiffs’ access to the online system to pay rent, returned plaintiffs’ mailed rent check and served plaintiffs with an unlawful-detainer action.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants evicted plaintiffs in retaliation for contacting the housing department, in violation of Civil Code § 1942.5 and breached the implied warranty of habitability in violation of Civil Code § 1941.

The file shows that on October 4, 2019, the court heard several discovery motions, including motions to deem requests for admissions admitted as to each plaintiff. The motions were deemed moot due to the service of responses before the hearing. The court awarded $760 in sanctions in favor of defendant Coehler and against each plaintiff and each plaintiff’s attorney of record.

There have been no timely oppositions filed to these motions.

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP Section 2033.290:

“(a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.”

The motions argue that the responses to the RFAs are improper, as they include objections, when plaintiffs failed to timely serve responses to the RFAs, so have waived objections. The motions request that plaintiffs be ordered to serve supplemental responses without objections.

Under CCP § 2033.250, the time to respond to requests for admissions is 30 days: “(a) Within 30 days after service of requests for admissions, the party to whom they are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party…”

Under CCP § 2033.280 (a), a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….”

Here, the Requests for Admissions, Set One, were served on May 31, 2019, by mail. [Ex. A]. The responses were accordingly due to be served no later than July 5, 2019. The responses were served by email on October 4, 2019, nearly three months late. [Cheng Decl.¶¶ 10, 11; Ex. C]. Evidently, the parties do not have an agreement to accept service via email, so that the responses have not been properly served at all. [Cheng Decl. ¶ 10].

In any case, plaintiffs have waived objections and have not sought or obtained relief from such a waiver. The motions accordingly are granted, and plaintiffs are ordered to serve further responses without objections.

Sanctions

Moving party seeks monetary sanctions.

CCP § 2033.290 (d) provides:

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Here, the motions should be granted, and there is no opposition, so no showing that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Sanctions should accordingly be awarded. The notice of motion seeks sanctions only

against the plaintiffs’ counsel of record. The sanctions sought are $1,810 for each motion, which seems a bit high for these one-issue motions, which were largely cut and pasted from each other. The court reduces sanctions to $1,200.00 per motion plus filing costs.

RULING:

[No Opposition}

Defendant Peter Coeler’s UNOPPOSED Motion for an Order Against Plaintiff Lake Cunningham Compelling Further Responses as to Requests for Admissions, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to serve further verified responses, without objections, which the court finds have been waived, to Requests for Admissions, Set One. Further responses to be served, by an appropriate method of service, within ten days.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,200.00 [$1,810 requested] plus costs of $60.00 are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, payable within thirty days. CCP § 2033.290 (d).

Defendant Peter Coeler’s UNOPPOSED Motion for an Order Against Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti Compelling Further Responses as to Requests for Admissions, Set One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to serve further verified responses, without objections, which the court finds have been waived, to Requests for Admissions, Set One. Further responses to be served, by an appropriate method of service, within ten days.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,200.00 [$1,810 requested] plus costs of $60.00 are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, payable within thirty days. CCP § 2033.290 (d).

Case Number: EC067570    Hearing Date: December 20, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 13

Date: 12/20/19

Case No: EC 067570 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Cunningham, et al. v. Coeler, et al.

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (5 Motions)

(CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.010 et seq)

Moving Party: Defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Peter Coeler

Responding Party: Plaintiff Lake Cunningham

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti (No Opposition)

RULING:

[No opposition]

Motions are granted.

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted to Request for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is GRANTED. Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses, or a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The court therefore orders that all matters specified in Request for Admissions, Set No. One, propounded by defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$1,285 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Or, if proposed responses served:

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted to Request for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is DENIED. The court finds that plaintiff Lake Cunningham has served proposed responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. However, monetary sanctions are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c) (“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion”). Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$1,285 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, payable within 30 days. CCP § 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(d).

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted to Request for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is GRANTED. Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses, or a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The court therefore orders that all matters specified in Request for Admissions, Set No. One, propounded by defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$1,285 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Or, if proposed responses served:

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted to Request for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is DENIED. The court finds that plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti has served proposed responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. However, monetary sanctions are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c) (“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion”). Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$1,285 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, payable within 30 days. CCP § 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(d).

Defendant Peter Coeler’s UNOPPOSED Motion for an Order Against Plaintiff Lake Cunningham for Evidentiary Sanctions as to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One or, In the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Further Responses:

Request for Evidentiary Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

Request for Further Responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to provide further verified responses to the subject interrogatories which provide all information requested, fully comply with the Discovery Act, and are without objection, as previously ordered by the court, as all objections, and any option to produce documents, have been waived. The court does not find an acceptable response to interrogatories that investigation of facts is continuing.

Further responses to be served within ten days.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$2,685 requested] are awarded in favor of defendant and cross-complainant Peter Coeler and against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.300(d), 2023.010(e) and (f), 2023.030(a).

Defendant Peter Coeler’s UNOPPOSED Motion for an Order Against Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti for Evidentiary Sanctions as to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One or, In the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Further Responses:

Request for Evidentiary Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

Request for Further Responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to provide further verified responses to the subject interrogatories which provide all information requested, fully comply with the Discovery Act, and are without objection, as previously ordered by the court, as all objections, and any option to produce documents, have been waived. The court does not find an acceptable response to interrogatories that investigation of facts is continuing.

Further responses to be served within ten days.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$2,685 requested] are awarded in favor of defendant and cross-complainant Peter Coeler and against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.300(d), 2023.010(e) and (f), 2023.030(a).

Defendant Peter Coeler’s UNOPPOSED Motion for an Order Against Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti or Evidentiary Sanctions as to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One or, In the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Further Responses and Production of Responsive Documents:

Request for Evidentiary Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

Request for Further Responses is GRANTED in part and denied in part.

Motion is DENIED as to Request No. 16, as it is duplicative of Request No. 7, and as to Request No. 17, as it duplicates Request No. 8.

Motion as to all other Requests is GRANTED. Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to serve further responses to the subject Requests for Production, and inspection is to be permitted of all responsive documents within 10 days. The further responses must be without objections, which have been waived. The responses must fully comply with CCP §§ 20131.210, 2031.220 and 2031.230, including, for each request either 1) a statement that plaintiff will comply with the particular demand, including a statement that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiff and to which no objection is being make will be included in the production, or 2) a statement of inability to comply, which statement shall specify whether any inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party, and which sets forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. The court does not find acceptable a response that the documents are duplicative of documents responsive to other discovery requests, and will not be produced in duplicate, that responding party is actively seeking documents, or that investigation is continuing. The court also does not find Requests Nos. 20 and 27 strictly duplicative, so responses must be served to both Requests.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [ $1,810 requested] are awarded in favor of defendant and cross-complainant Peter Coeler and against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.310(h), 2023.010 (f), and 2023.030(a).

Case Number: EC067570    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 14

Date: 12/13/19

Case No: EC 067570 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Cunningham, et al. v. Coeler, et al.

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (8 Motions)

(CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.010 et seq)

Moving Party: Defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Peter Coeler

Responding Party: Plaintiff Lake Cunningham

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti (No Opposition)

Proof of service timely filed (CRC 317(b)): ok

Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013(a)): ok

16/+5 days lapse (CCP §1005): ok

RULING:

[No opposition]

Motions are granted.

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded by defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$1,285 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lake Cunningham’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded by defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$1,285 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded by defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$1,285 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, propounded by defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to serve responses, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1.000.00 [$1,285 requested] are awarded in favor of defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust, and against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within thirty days. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lake Cunningham’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, propounded by defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to serve responses, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$1,285 requested] are awarded in favor of defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust, and against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within thirty days. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Defendant Peter Coeler’s UNOPPOSED Motion for an Order Against Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti for Evidentiary Sanctions as to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One or, In the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Further Responses:

Request for Evidentiary Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

Request for Further Responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to provide further verified responses to the subject interrogatories which provide all information requested, fully comply with the Discovery Act, and are without objection, as previously ordered by the court, as all objections, and any option to produce documents, have been waived. The court does not find an acceptable response to special interrogatories that discovery has already been provided, or that investigation of facts is continuing.

Further responses to be served within ten days.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$2,685 requested] are awarded favor of defendant and cross-complainant Peter Coeler, and against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.300(d), 2023.010(e) and (f), 2023.030(a).

Defendant Peter Coeler’s UNOPPOSED Motion for an Order Against Plaintiff Lake Cunningham for Evidentiary Sanctions as to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One or, In the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Further Responses:

Request for Evidentiary Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

Request for Further Responses is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to provide further verified responses to the subject interrogatories which provide all information requested, fully comply with the Discovery Act, and are without objection, as previously ordered by the court, as all objections, and any option to produce documents, have been waived. The court does not find an acceptable response to special interrogatories that discovery has already been provided, or that investigation of facts is continuing.

Further responses to be served within ten days.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [$2,685 requested] are awarded in favor of defendant and cross-complainant Peter Coeler and against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.300(d), 2023.010(e) and (f), 2023.030(a).

Defendant Peter Coeler’s UNOPPOSED Motion for an Order Against Plaintiff Lake Cunningham for Evidentiary Sanctions as to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One or, In the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Further Responses and Production of Responsive Documents:

Request for Evidentiary Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

Request for Further Responses is GRANTED in part and denied in part.

Motion is DENIED as to Request No. 16, as it is duplicative of Request No. 7, and as to Request No. 17, as it duplicates Request No. 8.

Motion as to all other Requests is GRANTED. Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to serve further responses to the subject Requests for Production, and inspection is to be permitted of all responsive documents within 10 days. The further responses must be without objections, which have been waived. The responses must fully comply with CCP §§ 20131.210, 2031.220 and 2031.230, including, for each request either 1) a statement that plaintiff will comply with the particular demand, including a statement that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiff and to which no objection is being make will be included in the production, or 2) a statement of inability to comply, which statement shall specify whether any inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party, and which sets forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. The court does not find acceptable a response that the documents are duplicative of documents responsive to other discovery requests, and will not be produced in duplicate, that responding party is actively seeking documents, or that investigation is continuing. The court also does not find Requests Nos. 20 and 27 strictly duplicative, so responses must be served to both Requests.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 [ $1,810 requested] are awarded in favor of defendant and cross-complainant Peter Coeler and against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, and plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.310(h), 2023.010 (f), and 2023.030(a).

Case Number: EC067570    Hearing Date: December 06, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 6

Date: 12/6/19

Case No: EC 067570 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Cunningham, et al. v. Coeler, et al.

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (5 Motions)

(CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.010 et seq)

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant P.A.C. Properties Management, LLC

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust

Responding Party: Plaintiff Lake Cunningham

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, from plaintiff Lake Cunningham

Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, from each plaintiff

Order establishing truth of each matter specified in Request for Admissions, Set No. One, as to each plaintiff

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served: July 31, 2019

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED

Date Motion served: September 17, 2019 Timely

OPPOSITION:

No opposition.

ANALYSIS:

Form and Special Interrogatories

Under CCP § 2030.290, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce writings...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

In this case, interrogatories have been directed to plaintiffs and plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses. Plaintiffs have accordingly waived all objections, as well as the option to produce, and are ordered to respond.

Requests for Admissions

Under CCP § 2033.280 (a), a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….” In addition, the requesting party may move for an order that “the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction....” CCP § 2033.280(b). The Code specifies that, “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

In this case, a set of requests for admissions were served on each plaintiff on July 31, 2019, and plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses, and have therefore waived all objections. Defendant has filed a noticed motion requesting an order that the requests be deemed admitted as truth. Unless satisfactory proposed responses are served before the hearing, the court must grant the motion.

Sanctions

With respect to Requests for Admissions, CCP § 2033.280(c) provides:

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP § 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuses of the discovery process include: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

In this case, plaintiffs have failed to respond to authorized methods of discovery and defendant has provided evidence that defendant has incurred expense as a result of the conduct. Since the motions are unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Defendant requests $1,250 for each of five motions. Four hours at $175 per hour is requested to attend the hearing in connection with each motion, when the motions will be heard together, and the time should be awarded only once. Otherwise, the sanctions appear reasonable.

Hence, sanctions for one motion will be $1,225.00 plus costs for an appearance at the hearing. Sanctions for all other motions will be $525.00 plus costs.

RULING:

[No opposition]

Motions are granted.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lake Cunningham’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,225.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $525.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Motion of Defendant/Cross-Defendant Willi O. & Adelheid TR Coeler Trust to Compel Plaintiff Lake Cunningham’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $525.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted to Request for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is GRANTED. Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses, or a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The court therefore orders that all matters specified in Request for Admissions, Set No. One, propounded by defendant P.A.C. Management, LLC are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $525.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Or, if proposed responses served:

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted to Request for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is DENIED. The court finds that plaintiff Lake Cunningham has served proposed responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. However, monetary sanctions are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c) (“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion”). Monetary sanctions in the amount of $525.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, payable within 30 days. CCP § 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(d).

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted to Request for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is GRANTED. Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses, or a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The court therefore orders that all matters specified in Request for Admissions, Set No. One, propounded by defendant P.A.C. Management, LLC are deemed admitted as true, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $525.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Or, if proposed responses served:

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted to Request for Admissions, Set No. One, served on Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is DENIED. The court finds that plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti has served proposed responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. However, monetary sanctions are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c) (“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion”). Monetary sanctions in the amount of $525.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, payable within 30 days. CCP § 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(d).

Case Number: EC067570    Hearing Date: November 22, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 10

Date: 11/22/19

Case No: EC 067570 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Cunningham, et al. v. Coeler, et al.

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (4 Motions)

(CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.010 et seq)

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant P.A.C. Properties Management, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Lake Cunningham

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti (No Opposition)

Proof of service timely filed (CRC 317(b)): ok

Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013(a)): ok

16/+5 day lapse (CCP §1005): ok

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, from each plaintiff

Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, from each plaintiff

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served: July 31, 2019

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED

Date Motion served: September 17, 2019 Timely

OPPOSITION:

No opposition.

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP § 2030.290, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce writings...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” CCP §2031.300 contains similar provisions with respect to requests to produce documents.

In this case, interrogatories and document production demands have been directed to plaintiffs and plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses. Plaintiffs have accordingly waived all objections, as well as the option to produce, and are ordered to respond.

Sanctions

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP § 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” A similar provision applies to document demands. See CCP § 2031.300(c).

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP § 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

In this case, plaintiffs have failed to respond to authorized methods of discovery and defendant has provided evidence that defendant has incurred expense as a result of the conduct. Since the motions are unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Defendant requests $1,250 for each of four motions. Four hours at $175 per hour is requested to attend the hearing in connection with each motion, when the motions will be heard together, and the time is awarded only once. Also, because there is no opposition, the court will not award attorney time for the reply. For three motions, the attorneys fees will be $350.00 per motion.

The court will allow 2 hours to attend the hearing allocated for only one motion. The court does not award attorney travel time. The amount awarded for one motion will be $700.00 to reflect attendance at the court hearing.

RULING:

[No opposition]

Motions are granted.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lake Cunningham’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $700.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are

awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lake Cunningham’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Lake Cunningham is ordered to serve responses, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $350.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Lake Cunningham, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set No. One is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $350.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti is ordered to serve responses, without objection, and to permit inspection and copying within 10 days. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $350.00 [$1,285 requested] plus $60.00 costs are awarded against plaintiff Vanessa Spinetti, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).