This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/06/2019 at 01:55:51 (UTC).

SANDRA ORTEGA ET AL VS JANET WILSON ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/01/2017 SANDRA ORTEGA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against JANET WILSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT B. BROADBELT, PATRICIA D. NIETO, GEORGINA T. RIZK, LISA K SEPE-WIESENFELD, STUART M. RICE and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3633

  • Filing Date:

    06/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

PATRICIA D. NIETO

GEORGINA T. RIZK

LISA K SEPE-WIESENFELD

STUART M. RICE

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Guardian Ad Litems

ORTEGA SANDRA

ORTEGA JONATHAN

SANDRA ORTEGA

JONATHAN ORTEGA

Defendants and Respondents

JANET WILSON TRUST

WILSON JANET

DOES 1 TO 50

JANET WILSON

SAND-SEA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.

ANITA K. ESTES

DOES 1-60

ESTES ANITA K.

JANET WILSON AS TRUSTEE OF JANET WILSON TRUST

SALZMAN DAVID

Plaintiffs, Minors and Not Classified By Court

ORTEGA JONATHAN

O. DANIEL

L MATHEW

L. DESTINY

DESTINY L.

DANIEL O. MATTHEW L.

L. DANIEL O. MATTHEW

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorneys

HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAW OFFICES OF

HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN ESQ.

GONZALEZ CATHY B.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

YANG REY S. ESQ.

REY S. YANG

YANG REY S.

KIM GREGORY S.

YANG REY SHUNG

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION

12/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION

11/25/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

9/24/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JANET WILSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/9/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JANET WILSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Answer - ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/19/2019: Answer - ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Reply - Reply REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/13/2019: Reply - Reply REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER BY DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Opposition - Opposition Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiffs SAC; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

1/16/2019: Opposition - Opposition Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiffs SAC; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Amended Complaint -

8/9/2018: Amended Complaint -

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

11/30/2018: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

5/29/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Proof of Service by Mail

6/1/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Order - Order PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE RESPONSES.

6/5/2018: Order - Order PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE RESPONSES.

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

6/6/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

Opposition - Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

2/16/2018: Opposition - Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/12/2018: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Amended Complaint -

8/9/2018: Amended Complaint -

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/1/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/1/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

102 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/20/2020
  • Hearing02/20/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2020
  • Hearing02/11/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Hearing01/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Hearing01/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Hearing01/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Further Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court Congestion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Further Status Conference (Re closure of Pleadings) - Not Held - Continued - Court Congestion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Continued - Court Congestion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Further Status Confer...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • DocketNOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION; Filed by ANITA K. ESTES (Defendant); JANET WILSON (Defendant); Janet Wilson as Trustee of Janet Wilson Trust dated March 8, 2001 (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
205 More Docket Entries
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by JONATHAN ORTEGA (Plaintiff); DANIEL O, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by JONATHAN ORTEGA (Plaintiff); DANIEL O, (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JONATHAN ORTEGA (Plaintiff); Sandra Ortega (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PRIVATE NUISANCE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketApplication-Miscellaneous (FOR DANIEL ORTEGA GUARDIAN AD LITEM ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC663633    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

SANDRA ORTEGA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

BC663633

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

JANET WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: February 6, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Sandra Ortega, et al.

Responding Party: Defendant Anita Estes

Motion to Compel Attendance and Production of Documents at Deposition

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion is CONTINUED to March 4, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. to be heard with defendant’s motion for protective order. The motion for protective order set for February 27, 2020 is advanced and continued to March 4, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. The court sets an OSC for February 11, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. re why a discovery referee should not be appointed. The motions set for February 11, 2020 and February 25, 2020 are continued to March 5, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2017, plaintiffs Sandra Ortega, Jonathan Ortega, and minors Daniel O., Matthew L., and Destiny L., by and through their guardian ad litem, Sandra Ortega filed a complaint against Janet Wilson and the Janet Wilson Trust. Plaintiffs asserted nine causes of action against defendants Wilson and Trust in the complaint: (1) private nuisance, (2) breach of warranty of habitability, (3) negligent maintenance of premises, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), (5) negligence per se, (6) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (7) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, (8) violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and (9) retaliatory eviction.

On May 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed a FAC against defendants Wilson, Trust, Sand-Sea Property Management, Inc., Anita K. Estes for the same nine causes of action.

On August 23, 2018, the court overruled defendants’ demurrers to the FAC as to the fifth, sixth, and ninth causes of action and sustained with leave to amend the eighth cause of action for violation of the FEHA. The court also granted defendants’ motions to strike punitive damages with leave to amend as to the fourth and fifth causes of action and denied their motions as to the ninth cause of action.

On September 11, 2018, plaintiffs filed a SAC against defendants asserting the same nine causes of action.

On February 22, 2019, the court overruled defendants’ demurrer as to the eighth cause of action and granted defendants’ motion to strike without leave to amend as to paragraph 104 (under plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action for negligence per se) and denied defendants’ motion to strike as to paragraph 137 (under plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action for retaliatory eviction) and prayer for punitive and exemplary damages. The court ordered defendants to file an answer within ten days.

Trial is set for May 19, 2020.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

The court has power to appoint a referee to supervise the deposition, if necessary, to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action, and to report findings and make recommendations thereon. CCP §639(a)(5); Jogani v. Jogani (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 158, 176. Under §639(d), all appointments of referees pursuant to this section shall be by written order and shall include the following: “When the referee is appointed pursuant to paragraph (a)(5), the exceptional circumstances requiring the reference, which must be specific to the circumstances of the particular case.” Discovery referees are improper in routine matters. See Hood v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 446, 449, n. 4. “Exceptional circumstances” are required to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon. CCP §639(d)(2). Circumstances are “exceptional,” for instance, where there are multiple issues to be resolved, where multiple motions will be heard simultaneously, where many complicated motions are filed, and generally, where there are numerous and voluminous documents to be reviewed which make the inquiry “inordinately time consuming.” Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 94, 105. In addition, a discovery referee may be appointed to monitor depositions where antagonism between the parties and/or counsel might otherwise prolong the proceedings and frustrate discovery. Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶8:1804.5. “Where either party anticipates that the other will try to frustrate legitimate discovery at a deposition, the referee’s presence can curtail such conduct.” Id., ¶8:873.

Under CCP §645.1(b), when a referee is appointed pursuant to section 639, at any time after a determination of ability to pay is made as specified in section 639(d)(6), the court may order the parties to pay the fees of referees who are not employees or officers of the court at the time of appointment, as fixed pursuant to section 1023, in any manner determined by the court to be fair and reasonable, including an apportionment of the fees among the parties. Under section 639(d)(6)(A), the written order shall include “[e]ither a finding that no party has established an economic inability to pay a pro rata share of the referee’s fee or a finding that one or more parties has established an economic inability to pay a pro rata share of the referee’s fees and that another party has agreed voluntarily to pay that additional share of the referee’s fee. A court shall not appoint a referee at a cost to the parties if neither of these findings is made.” If a party demonstrates that the costs associated with a reference impose a significant hardship, it is inappropriate for the court to order that party to contribute such costs. DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal. App. 4th 1279. California Rules of Court Rule 3.922(f) requires that, prior to entering an order of referral, the court must first find that no party established an economic inability to pay a pro rata share of the referee’s fees or that the other party has agreed voluntarily to pay the additional share of the referee’s fees. Where no party has established an inability to pay a pro rata share of the referee's fees, the court may order the fees to be split on a pro rata basis. Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶8:1804.20.

All appointments under CCP §639 shall include the maximum hourly rate and number of hours the referee may charge. Upon the written application, the court may, for good cause, modify the maximum number of hours.

DISCUSSION

There are 14 discovery motions scheduled or reserved from February 11, 2020 to May 29, 2020. There appears to be exceptional circumstances to appoint a referee. There are multiple issues to be resolved, multiple motions would be heard simultaneously, and there are numerous documents to be reviewed which make the inquiry “inordinately time consuming.”

The court sets an OSC re why a discovery referee should not be appointed.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.