This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 23:41:31 (UTC).

WILLIAM MUNSON ET AL VS JOHN STEWART COMPANY

Case Summary

On 06/05/2017 WILLIAM MUNSON filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JOHN STEWART COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are AMY D. HOGUE and GAIL FEUER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3837

  • Filing Date:

    06/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

AMY D. HOGUE

GAIL FEUER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MUNSON SHARON

MUNSON WILLIAM

Respondents and Defendants

JOHN STEWART COMPANY

DOES 1 TO 20

HAYES MARKIE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

WOLCOTT JOHN F. ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

LEAVITT SCOTT M. ESQ.

LEAVITT SCOTT MICHAEL ESQ.

 

Court Documents

DECLARATION OF JOHN F. WOLCOEF RE REQUEST TO HAVE A COURT ERROR CORRECTED IN DENYING ATTORNEY JOHN F WOLCOTT'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

9/11/2018: DECLARATION OF JOHN F. WOLCOEF RE REQUEST TO HAVE A COURT ERROR CORRECTED IN DENYING ATTORNEY JOHN F WOLCOTT'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Request for Judicial Notice

12/12/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration

12/12/2018: Declaration

Motion to Compel

12/12/2018: Motion to Compel

Request for Judicial Notice

12/12/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order

12/13/2018: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

12/13/2018: Ex Parte Application

Notice of Ruling

12/14/2018: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement

12/26/2018: Case Management Statement

Notice

12/26/2018: Notice

Minute Order

1/10/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

1/14/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

3/18/2019: Minute Order

Order

3/18/2019: Order

Notice of Ruling

3/21/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

5/15/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

5/17/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

8/23/2018: Minute Order

41 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by John Stewart Company (Defendant); Markie Hayes (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by John Stewart Company (Defendant); Markie Hayes (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (- motion to compel pltfs' depositions, production of documents, and signed Veterans Affirs Authorizations) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (- compel pltfs' depositions, production of documents, and signed Veterans Affairs Authorization) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • DocketRuling Re: Defendants' Motion to Compel Deposition, Production of Documents, and Authorization for Veterans Affairs Records; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (MOTION OF DEFENDANTS, MARKIE HAYES AND JOHN STEWART COMPANY, ...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 78; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
88 More Docket Entries
  • 06/30/2017
  • DocketEX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/30/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/30/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/30/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-06-30 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/30/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF JOHN F. WOLCOTT RE NOTICE HAVING BEEN GIVEN

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/14/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/14/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Sharon Munson (Plaintiff); William Munson (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ;ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****3837    Hearing Date: February 11, 2021    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

WILLIAM MUNSON, et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JOHN STEWAT COMPANY, et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 663837

Hearing Date:

February 11, 2021

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

Defendants Markie Hayes and John Stewart Company’s Motion for terminating sanctions

Defendants Markie Hayes and John Stewart Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. The Court strikes the Complaint. The Court declines to impose monetary sanctions or any other sanctions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of the warranty of habitability. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiffs William and Sharon Munson are tenants at property owned by Defendants John Stewart Company and Markie Hayes (“Defendants”). (FAC ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs have been exposed to vermin, plumbing problems, and inadequate security and locks. (FAC ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs have also been subject to discrimination because they are white. (FAC ¶ 10.) Rent has been raised without proper notice. (FAC ¶ 11.)

procedural history

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on June 5, 2017, and filed the FAC on July 6, 2017, alleging eight causes of action:

  1. Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

  2. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

  3. Public Nuisance

  4. Violation of Civil Code ; 1941.3

  5. Violation of Unfair Competition Law

  6. Negligence

  7. Unlawful Discrimination

  8. Criminal Trespassing

Defendants filed an Answer on September 20, 2017.

Plaintiffs have been in pro per since a substitution of counsel was filed on September 19, 2018.

On March 18, 2019, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Depositions, Production of Documents, and Signed Veterans Affairs Authorizations.

On July 21, 2020, this Court granted Defendants’ three Motions to Compel: Production of Documents, Requests for Admission, and Special Interrogatories.

On October 8, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

No Opposition has been filed.

On February 5, 2021, Defendants filed a Notice of No Opposition.

Discussion

  1. MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

The court may impose terminating sanctions, include an order striking pleadings, and order dismissing an action, or an order rendering judgment by default against a party, for conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.030.) This conduct include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.010.)  

Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  Dismissal is a drastic measure, and terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance with a rule or order and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective.  (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.)  “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.”  (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) 

A court may also impose issue, evidentiary, or monetary sanctions upon a party that has engaged in misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. ; 2023.030.) “Absent unusual circumstances, such as repeated and egregious discovery abuses, two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of a nonmonetary sanction. There must be a failure to comply with a court order and the failure must be willful.” (Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559.) 

Defendants move for terminating sanctions because Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ requests for discovery and has failed to abide by the Court’s prior order to respond to discovery requests. (Motion at p. 3.) Defendants contend that they sent various written discovery requests to Plaintiff on March 20, 2019 but they have not received any verified responses and/or documents to the written discovery requests. (Brouses Decl., ¶¶ 3, 9-10.) Defendants sent meet and confer letters on May 31, 2019 and August 22, 2019. (Brouses Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) Further, this Court ordered, on July 21, 2020, Plaintiff to respond to three sets of discovery requests within 30 days. (Brouses Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 6.)

The Court’s July 21, 2020 order was clear and Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses to the three sets of discovery requests (production, admission, special interrogatories) amounts to willful disobedience of the Court’s orders. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, and there is nothing in the record constituting good cause to excuse Plaintiff’s failure to obey the order. The Court does not believe that any lesser sanctions will compel compliance with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. The Court strikes the Complaint. The Court declines to impose monetary sanctions or any other sanctions.

DATED: February 11, 2021

________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WOLCOTT JOHN FREDERICK