This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 17:22:59 (UTC).

LINDA DUNN BOERUM, ET AL. VS. COSTA DEL SOL BOAT SLIP..ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/16/2018 LINDA DUNN BOERUM filed an Other lawsuit against COSTA DEL SOL BOAT SLIP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARK C. KIM. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1695

  • Filing Date:

    03/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

LINDA DUNN BOERUM

TOM BOERUM

CHRISTINE DUNN

BOERUM LINDA DUNN

BOERUM TOM

DUNN CHRISTINE

Defendants

JAMES SCHMIDT

COSTA DEL SOL BOAT SLIP OWNERS ASSOC.

CONRAD MARK TORROMEO

HAROLD PINGREE

DOES 1 TO 25

PACIFIC COAST CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT INC.

SCHMIDT JAMES

TORROMEO CONRAD MARK

PINGREE HAROLD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

STONE & SALLUS LLP (JASON M. STONE)

STONE JASON MICHAEL

VOSS DAVID CRAIN

Defendant Attorneys

BUCKNER ROBINSON & MIRKOVICH

PYKA LENHARDT SCHNAIDER DAWKINS

DAWKINS KRISTA ELIZABETH

WEINBERG CATHERINE JOANNE

COOK ANDREA LENORE

 

Court Documents

Other - - TENTATIVE RULING AND FINAL ORDER

9/18/2020: Other - - TENTATIVE RULING AND FINAL ORDER

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES

8/6/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF FRED S. PETERS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 2016.040 RE: REQUEST FOR INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

7/2/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF FRED S. PETERS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 2016.040 RE: REQUEST FOR INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CONRAD MARK TORROMEO IN SUPPORT OF COST BILL

3/20/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CONRAD MARK TORROMEO IN SUPPORT OF COST BILL

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

11/12/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Other - - TENTATIVE RULING AND FINAL ORDER

8/15/2019: Other - - TENTATIVE RULING AND FINAL ORDER

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 08/15/2019

8/15/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 08/15/2019

Case Management Statement

8/8/2019: Case Management Statement

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/1/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

7/23/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

3/5/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/16/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

5/31/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/19/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice - Of Errata

8/21/2018: Notice - Of Errata

Notice of Motion - And Motion For Consolidation

8/14/2018: Notice of Motion - And Motion For Consolidation

Other - - Civil Deposit

7/31/2018: Other - - Civil Deposit

100 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/11/2021
  • Hearing01/11/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2021
  • Hearing01/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Responses to Special Interrogatories and Form Interrogatories and Requests for Monetary Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • DocketTentative Ruling and Final Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses) of 09/18/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by CONRAD MARK TORROMEO (Defendant); PACIFIC COAST CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT INC. (Defendant); COSTA DEL SOL BOAT SLIP OWNERS ASSOC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses); Filed by CONRAD MARK TORROMEO (Defendant); PACIFIC COAST CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT INC. (Defendant); COSTA DEL SOL BOAT SLIP OWNERS ASSOC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
127 More Docket Entries
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by LINDA DUNN BOERUM (Plaintiff); TOM BOERUM (Plaintiff); CHRISTINE DUNN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by LINDA DUNN BOERUM (Plaintiff); TOM BOERUM (Plaintiff); CHRISTINE DUNN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by LINDA DUNN BOERUM (Plaintiff); TOM BOERUM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by LINDA DUNN BOERUM (Plaintiff); TOM BOERUM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by LINDA DUNN BOERUM (Plaintiff); TOM BOERUM (Plaintiff); CHRISTINE DUNN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketOrder (To Show Cause Hearing)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by LINDA DUNN BOERUM (Plaintiff); TOM BOERUM (Plaintiff); CHRISTINE DUNN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC061695    Hearing Date: September 18, 2020    Dept: S27

  1. Background Facts

    Plaintiffs, Linda Dunn Boerum, Tom Boerum, and Christine Dunn filed this action against Defendants, Costa Del Sol Boat Slip Owners Association, Pacific Coast Condominium Management, Inc., Conrad Mark Torromeo, Harold Pingree, and James Schmidt for sexual harassment, battery, assault, IIED, IIED, violation of Civ Code §12955.7, disability discrimination, trespass, and private nuisance. The case arises out of a dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning the use of adjacent boat slips.

  2. History of Discovery Dispute

    Defendants propounded RFAs and RPDs on Plaintiffs. After several agreed-upon extensions of time to respond, Plaintiffs served responses on 4/08/20. Responses to the RPDs fell into three categories. Some responses consisted merely of objections on certain grounds, some responses consisted of similar objections but with an additional statement that responsive documents would be produced, and one response consisted of a series of different objections. All issues with responses to RFAs have been resolved between the parties, and therefore the issues will not be summarized at this time.

    Between 6/04/20 and 7/27/20, Counsel met and conferred. The meet and confer consisted mostly of Defense Counsel articulating reasons why the responses are not sufficient, and Plaintiffs’ attorney indicating he agreed and needed more time. On 7/27/20, Plaintiffs’ attorney indicated he needs more time to obtain further responses; motions to compel will not be necessary; and he is agreeable to waive any time constraints for filing MTCFs. On the same day, Defendants filed these motions.

  3. Untimely Opposition

    The hearing on the motions was originally scheduled for 9/08/20, making opposition due on or before 8/25/20. However, on 8/06/20, the Court gave notice that the hearing on the motion was continued to 9/18/20; Plaintiffs therefore had until 9/04/20 to file opposition. They filed untimely opposition on 9/08/20. Because of the Labor Day holiday, the Court has read and considered the untimely opposition, but notes that this appears to be part of the pattern and practice of Plaintiffs’ attorney to delay in responding to discovery and timely filing/serving papers.

  4. Issues Presented

    The following issues remain between the parties at this time:

  1. Responses Promising to Produce Documents

    Many of the responses stated a variety of objections, then indicated an intention to produce all responsive documents. Defendants argue further responses to these RPDs are necessary because a mere promise to produce documents at some uncertain point in the future, coupled with a failure to properly produce those documents, is insufficient. It appears Defendants are conflating the standard for a motion to compel a further response with the standard for a motion to compel production of documents. These two motions are governed by different code sections – CCP §2031.310 governs a motion to compel further responses, while §2031.320 governs a motion to compel production.

    The Court finds Plaintiffs’ responses are sufficient; the only issue remaining is whether compliance is sufficient. Because this is not a motion to compel compliance, the motion is denied. The Court asks the parties to meet and confer to resolve any issues relating to production without further court intervention.

  2. Responses Consisting Solely of Objections

    Many of the responses consisted solely of objections. Plaintiffs contend Defendants did not meet and confer concerning those responses prior to filing the motions. Plaintiffs do not attempt to justify their objections by way of the opposition. The Court has reviewed the parties’ meet and confer correspondence, and finds Plaintiffs repeatedly stated that they would provide substantive responses. The clear implication was that they were agreeing not to stand by their objections and would provide substantive responses. The Court finds the meet and confer correspondence was sufficient. Plaintiffs must provide further responses to all of the RPDs where Plaintiffs’ sole response consisted of objections. Plaintiffs must do so within ten days.

  3. Sanctions

    Boilerplate responses were served in April. Plaintiffs have been promising, since that time, to serve substantive responses. Plaintiffs did so in connection with some of the responses after Defendants filed their motions, and have still not done so in connection with other responses. It is now September. The Court finds sanctions are appropriate.

    Defendants seek sanctions in the total amount of $3276, which amount is both reasonable and fully supported by Defense Counsel’s declaration. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiffs and their attorneys of record, jointly and severally. They are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, in the total amount of $3276, within twenty days.

  4. Conclusion

    Defendants’ motions to compel further responses to RFAs are substantively moot. Defendants’ motions to compel further responses to RPDs 2-9, 11-16, 19, and 21-29 are denied, but the parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning proper production of documents responsive to these RPDs. Defendants’ motions to compel further responses to RPDs 1, 10, 17-18, and 20 are granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve supplemental responses within ten days.

    Defendants’ request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $3276 and payable within twenty days.

    Defendants are ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.