On 10/02/2017 MARHNAZ RAD filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SALOME L SHEK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH, RAMONA G. SEE and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
RAMONA G. SEE
SHEK SALOME L.
REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CHOICE
REAL CHOICE MANAGEMENT INC.
DOES 1 THROUGH 50
LAW OFFICES OF GERALD S. OHN APC
OHN GERALD SANG
RESNICK & LOUIS P.C.
CALDWELL SUSAN L. ESQ.
10/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)
9/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION (SUPPLEMENTAL) TO PLAINTIFFS'RESCHEDULED MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES
9/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION (SUPPLEMENTAL) TO PLAINTIFFS'RESCHEDULED MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
9/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION (SUPPLEMENTAL) TO PLAINTIFFS'RESCHEDULED MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
9/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION (SUPPLEMENTAL) TO PLAINTIFFS'RESCHEDULED MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
8/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SALOME L. SHEK'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF MARHNAZ RAD'S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DE
12/23/2019: Case Management Statement
9/20/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SALOME L. SHEKS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF MARHNAZ RADS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET 1;
10/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: TRANSFERRING COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY CASE...)
9/20/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SALOME L. SHEKS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF MARHNAZ RADS DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET 1
9/20/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SALOME L. SHEKS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF MARHNAZ RADS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 1;
9/20/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
9/5/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion
7/31/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL R...)
5/29/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL RELATED DATES
5/30/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO THE JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL OF DEFENDANTS REAL CHOICE MANAGEMENT, INC. AND SALOME L. SHEK; DECLARATION OF GERALD S. OHN
1/24/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
10/2/2017: SUMMONS -
Hearing10/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing09/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF MARHNAZ RAD'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 1;) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF MARHNAZ RAD'S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET l;) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT REAL CHOICE MANAGEMENT'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEESRead MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT REAL CHOICE MANAGEMENT, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Marhnaz Rad (Plaintiff); Amir Rad (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Marhnaz Rad (Plaintiff); Amir Rad (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Marhnaz Rad (Plaintiff); Amir Rad (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC677993 Hearing Date: September 16, 2020 Dept: M
Torrance Dept. M
MARHNAZ RAD, et al.,
SALOME L. SHEK, et al.,
Hearing Date: September 16, 2020
Moving Parties: Plaintiff Marhnaz Rad
Responding Party: Defendant Salome L. Shek
(1) Motion to Compel Defendant Shek’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1
(2) Motion to Compel Defendant Shek’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1
(3) Motion to Compel Defendant Shek’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set 1
(4) Motion to Deem the Truth of Facts in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set 1 Admitted
(5) Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Shek
The court considered the moving, opposition, reply, supplemental opposition, and supplemental reply papers.
The motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, demand for production of documents, and to deem matters admitted in request for admission are CONTINUED to September 30, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. to allow defendant to re-serve her discovery responses dated January 2019 and verifications, within ten days. The motions will go off calendar upon proof that the responses and verifications were served. The requests for sanctions are DENIED.
The motion to compel defendant’s deposition is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to appear by videoconference within 20 days.
On October 2, 2017, Marhnaz Rad and Amir Rad filed a complaint against Salome L. Shek and Real Choice Management Inc. for (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) negligence, and (3) nuisance. Plaintiffs allege that they resided at the subject property at 30181 Via Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, from September 20, 2015 to April 2017. The following conditions existed at the property in the common areas and in plaintiffs’ residence: cockroach infestations and lack of insect control; rodent infestations, feces, and lack of rodent control; pollution from roach feces floating in the air; and bites from cockroaches and other insects; stoves and ovens that are inoperative; broken kitchen and bathroom cabinets; inoperable air conditioning; broken tiles and other flooring; toxic mold; inoperable smoke alarms; lack of sanitary plumbing; holes in ceilings and/or interior walls; water leaks; and inoperable garage opener. Around late December 2016 and early January 2017, plaintiffs informed defendants of elevated levels of mold and requested remediation. Defendants did not remedy these issues. On February 2, 2017, plaintiffs requested that defendants repair issues as alleged above. Defendants did not remedy these issues.
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. CCP §2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.
Request for Production of Documents
Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. CCP §2031.300. Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. So, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.
Request for Admissions
Pursuant to CCP §2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under §2023.010 et seq.” Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b). The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “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).
Under CCP §2025.010, “Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.”
Under CCP §2025.250, “(a) Unless the court orders otherwise under Section 2025.260, the deposition of a natural person, whether or not a party to the action, shall be taken at a place that is, at the option of the party giving notice of the deposition, either within 75 miles of the deponent’s residence, or within the county where the action is pending and within 150 miles of the deponent’s residence.”
Under CCP §2027.010, “(a) Any party may obtain discovery by taking an oral deposition, as described in Section 2025.010, in a foreign nation. . . .”
Plaintiff Marhnaz Rad requests that the court compel defendants to respond to their initial sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand for production of documents, and to deem admitted the truth of the matters in the request for admissions.
Plaintiff also request that the court compel defendant Shek to appear for deposition.
Plaintiff contends that she served form interrogatories and demand for production of documents on November 19, 2018. Responses were due by December 24, 2018. On December 27, 2018, defense counsel requested an extension to respond to January 18, 2019. Plaintiffs assert that plaintiffs’ counsel did not receive any responses. On December 21, 2018, plaintiff served her initial special interrogatories and request for admission on defendant. Responses were due by January 25, 2019. None were received.
Plaintiff further contends that on May 16, 2019, she served a Notice of Deposition of defendant Shek with documents requests for a deposition to take place on May 30, 2019, in Santa Clarita, CA. Plaintiff contends that defendant did not serve any written objections. She did not appear for deposition.
On August 22 and 23, 2019, plaintiffs’ counsel’s office sent meet and confer letters via email to defense counsel but did not receive a response. Plaintiff asserts that as of the date of filing the motions on September 5, 2019, plaintiffs’ counsel had not received responses.
The hearing was originally set for September 27, 2019, and apparently continued to October 22, 2019. On October 18, 2019, the case was transferred from the Personal Injury Hub to Torrance Courthouse on October 18, 2019. Although purportedly instructed to do so, plaintiff did not reschedule the motions in Torrance. Rather, almost ten months later, on August 13, 2020, plaintiff served notices of continued hearing for plaintiffs’ motions to the herein date.
In oppositions (filed on September 17, 2019), defendant contends that she served discovery responses on January 23, 2019, with verifications to follow. See Susan Caldwell decls., Exh 1. Defendant argues that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to properly meet and confer. With respect to the August 22, 2019 meet and conferletter, plaintiffs’ counsel had requested a response within three business days. Defense counsel was in trial and responded on August 30, 2019, asking what discovery issues remained. Defendant asserts that plaintiffs’ counsel never responded. On September 11, 2019, defense counsel requested that plaintiffs’ counsel meet and confer regarding outstanding discovery issues, reiterating that responses had been served.
With respect to the deposition, defendant contends that she objected to the deposition notice. She asserts that on May 29, 2019, defense counsel confirmed to all parties that the deposition would not be going forward based on her objections. She lives in Hong Kong, China and is not a resident of the U.S. She reiterates that she has no first-hand knowledge about plaintiffs’ property. She argues that plaintiffs’ counsel did not meet and confer regarding her objections. Further, she argues, the deposition of PMK for property manager confirmed that all dealings with the property and plaintiffs had been exclusively handled by the property manager.
In replies (filed on September 20, 2019), plaintiff reiterates her contention that she never received any responses from defendant prior to filing the motions. Plaintiff contends that plaintiffs’ counsel did not receive defense counsel’s August 30, 2019 letter.
On September 4, 2020, defendant filed a supplemental opposition arguing that she served responses along with verifications in January 2019. Defendant also argues that the motions are moot and/or untimely. Defendant points out that plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and confer before “rescheduling” the motions.
In a supplemental reply, plaintiff argues that the motions are timely. As to the deposition, plaintiff asserts that defendant waived any objections because she did not serve objections. Plaintiff asserts that defendant has not provided any evidence that she resides outside of the U.S.
The court rules as follows:
The motions regarding written discovery are CONTINUED to allow defendant to re-serve verified responses that were purportedly served in January 2019. Although defendant has shown that she served responses in January 2019, she has not shown proof that verifications were served. The court notes that plaintiffs’ counsel should have attempted to meet and confer further before “rescheduling” the motions to obtain defendant’s discovery responses, which were attached to defendant’s oppositions from September 2019.
As to the motion to compel deposition, “[w]hile section 2025.260, subdivision (a), provides for a court to permit a deposition of a party or officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party at a place ‘that is more distant than that permitted under Section 2025.250 [(75 miles from the deponent's residence or within the county where the action is pending and within 150 miles of the deponent's residence)],’ section 2025.260 does not provide for those depositions to be held at a place more distant than that permitted by section 1989. There is simply no conflict between the plain language of sections 1989 and 2025.260. Section 2025.260 permits depositions more than 75 (or 150) miles from a deponent's residence, but section 1989 restricts a deponent from being required to attend a California deposition if the deponent is not a California resident.” Toyota Motor Corp v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 1107, 1125. The court notes that defendant has not shown that she served timely objections before the May 30, 2019 deposition date. Although defendant did not provide a declaration as to her residency, defense counsel states in her declaration that defendant resides in Hong Kong. Further, although defendant cannot be ordered to appear personally in California for a deposition, defendant is ordered to make herself available by videoconference.
The parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.