SADDLETREE RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSN VS FRANCISCO DORADO ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696367 Hearing Date: September 15, 2021 Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Saddletree\r\nRanch Homeowners Association

OPPOSITION: None\r\nSubmitted

Defendants/Cross-Complainants\r\nFrancisco Dorado and Manuel del Villar (collectively “Defendants”), leased a property\r\nin Sylmar, California, which was owned and managed by Plaintiff/Cross-Complainants\r\nSaddletree Ranch Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff alleges that\r\nDefendants stopped paying their monthly rent in April 2016.

Saddletree states\r\nthat on March 23, 2021, it served on Villar requests for: admission, documents,\r\nform interrogatories, and special interrogatories.

It also served\r\nDorado with requests for: documents, form interrogatories, and special\r\ninterrogatories. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

Saddletree requests\r\nthat sanctions of $2,535, for each motion, be imposed on Defendants and their\r\ncounsel.

It is undisputed\r\nthat this motion is unopposed, and that no responses have been served.

Saddletree’s motions\r\nto compel are GRANTED. Villar’s requests for admission are DEEMED ADMITTED.

Regarding sanctions\r\nthe Court finds that the reasonable amount of sanction is $885 for each motion.\r\n($275 hourly rate x 3 hours + 60 filing fee.): Villar is sanctioned for $3,540\r\nand Dorado is sanctioned for $2,655.

Case Number: BC696367    Hearing Date: May 11, 2021    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant Saddletree Ranch Homeowners Association

OPPOSITION: Cross-Complainants Francisco Dorado and Manuel del Villar

Cross-Defendant Saddletree Ranch Homeowners Association leased a horse ranch, to Francisco Dorado and Manuel del Villar (collectively, Cross-Complainants). Originally there was a written lease between the parties, it expired in 2014. Cross-Complainants filed a cross-complaint alleging that Saddletree falsely promised to renew the lease, and in reliance, they installed trade fixtures and made other improvements to the property. The first amended cross-complaint (FACC) alleges:

1) Breach of Oral Lease Agreement;

2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;

3) Breach of Implied Agreement;

4) Promissory Estoppel;

5) Declaratory Relief;

6) Conversion;

7) Wrongful Eviction.

Saddletree brings this opposed demurrer—which does not demur the conversion claim— to the cross-complaint, but the Court notes Cross-Complainants’ opposition only disputes the Seventh cause of action. (The Court also notes that the FACC’s paragraph order is incorrect as paragraphs 20 and 21 are repeated.)

First Cause of Action, Breach of Oral Lease Agreement: SUSTAINED

This claim is barred by the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds requires that a lease for more than one year must be in writing. (Civ. Code § 1624(a)(1).) Here, in 2014 the parties entered into an oral agreement to continue the lease for another four years. (FACC, ¶¶ 13, 21.) Because the lease was for four years it is barred under the statute of frauds.

Second Cause of Action, Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: SUSTAINED

This claim is derivative of the first cause of action. Accordingly, the demurrer to this claim is SUSTAINED.

Third Cause of Action, Breach of Implied Agreement: SUSTAINED

This claim is duplicative of the prior claims. Thus, the breach of implied agreement claim is also barred by the statute of frauds since the lease agreement was not to be performed within one year.

Fourth Cause of Action, Promissory Estoppel: SUSTAINED

The Court finds that Cross-Complainants have insufficiently alleged the promissory estoppel claim. Promissory estoppel requires “1) a clear and unambiguous promise by the promisor, and (2) reasonable, foreseeable and detrimental reliance by the promisee.” Bushell v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 915, 929. Cross-Complainants have not alleged that Saddletree made an unambiguous promise regarding the lease’s renewal. Instead, they allege that they “repeatedly requested a written lease extension” and that Saddletree “always assured Cross-Complainants that the lease had been extended and that the written document would be forthcoming.” (FACC, ¶¶ 15, 16.).

Fifth Cause of Action, Declaratory Relief: SUSTAINED

The Court finds that declaratory relief does not apply to the present dispute. “[T]here is no basis for declaratory relief where only past wrongs are involved.” Baldwin v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 393, 407. There is no current relationship between the parties as Cross-Complainants vacated the property in March 2017. (FACC, ¶ 20.)

Seventh Cause of Action, Wrongful Eviction: SUSTAINED

Wrongful eviction requires plaintiff’s peaceable possession of the premises and their dispossession without judicial process. Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1041-1042.

Saddletree argues that plaintiff did not have lawful possession of the property because the lease had expired and the former tenant rented the property to a third-party in 2016, even though Cross-Complainants were still there. (FACC, ¶ 18.) Cross-Complainants then subleased the property from the third-party. (FACC, ¶ 19.)

In 2014, after the written lease expired, the parties allegedly orally renewed the lease for four years. But the statute of frauds makes the oral lease voidable. While Cross-Complainants had physical possession of the property until April 2017, it does not appear that they had a legal right to possess the property.

Conclusion: Saddletree’s Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED.

Case Number: BC696367    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Saddletree Ranch Homeowners Association

OPPOSITION: None

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Francisco Dorado (“Dorado”) and Manuel del Villar (“Villar”) (collectively “Defendants”), leased a property in Sylmar, California, which was owned and managed by Plaintiff/Cross-Complainants Saddletree Ranch Homeowners Association (“Saddletree”), out of where they owned and managed a business renting horse stables and hosting equestrian shows.

Saddletree alleges that Defendants stopped paying their monthly rent in April 2016.

On November 7, 2018, Saddletree served a Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. 1, on Dorado and Villar. Saddletree has not received a response from either Dorado or Villar. No opposition has been filed. Saddletree requests that Dorado and Villar be ordered to respond to Saddletree’s Demand for Production, Set No. 1, without objections, within 15 days.

On November 7, 2018, Saddletree served Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, on Dorado and Villar. Saddletree has not received a response from either Dorado or Villar. No opposition has been filed. Saddletree requests that Dorado and Villar be ordered to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, without objections, within 15 days.

Saddletree also requests monetary sanctions in aggregate of $3,097.50 against Dorado and Villar and their counsel, Aldo Flores (“Flores”).

Standard: Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, 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.

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. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031. 300, subd. (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.)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he 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 any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

On November 7, 2018, Saddletree served a Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. 1, on Dorado and Villar.

On November 7, 2018, Saddletree served Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, on Dorado and Villar. Saddletree has not received a response from either Dorado or Villar.

The statutory deadlines for Dorado and Villar to respond have long since passed.

Accordingly, Saddletree’s motions are each GRANTED.

Sanctions: Saddletree requests $3,097.50 in sanctions from Dorado for both motions to compel production and response to the interrogatories. Counsel’s hourly rate is $395. Saddletree incurred a $60 filing fee for each motion. Counsel states that they spent 4 hours drafting the motions and that they will require 3 hours to attend the hearing. Saddletree also had another attorney review the motions for 0.5 hours at an hourly rate of $425.

Saddletree requests $3,097.50 in sanctions from Villar for both motions to compel production and response to the interrogatories. Counsel’s hourly rate is $395. Saddletree incurred a $60 filing fee for each motion. Saddletree states that they spent 4 hours drafting the motions and that they will require 3 hours to attend the hearing. Saddletree also had another attorney review the motions for 0.5 hours at an hourly rate of $425.

The Court will award Saddletree $3,097.50 in sanctions against Villar and his counsel and

$3,097.50 in sanctions against Dorado and his counsel.

Conclusion: The Court orders Dorado and Villar to respond, without objections, to Saddletree’s Demand for Production of Documents (Sets No. 1) within 15 days of this order.

The Court orders Dorado and Villar to respond, without objections, to Saddletree’s Form Interrogatories (Sets No. 1) within 15 days of this order

The Court also orders Dorado and Flores, jointly and severally, to pay Saddletree $3,097.50, within 30 days of this order.

The Court also orders Villar and Flores, jointly and severally, to pay Saddletree $3,097.50, within 30 days of this order.

Moving Party to provide notice.