Request,Application: Purington, Cynthia vs. Torrigton One Llc

/media/1546

FCS057573 Motions for Contempt TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied. No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to the court. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a contempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Int’l Union v. Superior Court (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.) Page 1 of 1

DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FOR MANU VS JOE'S LOGISTICS, CVRI2400967 AUTO (OVER $35,000) OF MANU INC. PUPUATU MANU MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT ON MANU VS JOE'S LOGISTICS, CVRI2400967 COMPLAINT FOR AUTO (OVER INC. $35,000) OF MANU PUPUATU MANU Tentative Ruling: Hearing is continued to 9/25/24. CMC is reset to 9/25/24. Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading and obviate the need for filing the demurrer. CCP § 430.41; see CCP § 430.41(a). The § 430.41 meet and confer must take place at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. CCP § 430.41(a)(2). If the parties cannot meet and confer by the deadline, the demurring party is granted an automatic 30-day extension of time to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving a declaration, on or before the date the responsive pleading is due, stating that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining why the parties could not meet and confer. CCP § 430.41(a)(2). Defendant states that she sent a letter to Plaintiff requesting to request a meet and confer regarding the deficiencies in the complaint. (Mesrobian Decl. ¶3). This is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of CCP § 430.41(a). Defendant is ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff by telephone for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the demurrer. As part of the meet and confer process, Defendant shall identify with legal support the basis of the alleged deficiencies in the subject pleadings. Plaintiff shall provide legal support for his position that the pleadings are legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how they may be further amended to cure any legal insufficiencies. After meeting and conferring, Defendant shall, 7 days before the continued hearing date set forth above, do one of the following: (1) Vacate the hearing on the demurrer; (2) File with the Court a declaration stating the parties have agreed that Plaintiff will file an amended pleading before the date set forth above; or (3) File with the Court a declaration stating the means by which the parties met and conferred and identifying the specific objections in the demurrer, and supporting memorandum of points and authorities that the parties were unable to resolve. The Court will not accept further briefing.

Case Number: 23AHCV00370 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: P [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA OF NON-PARTY CAROLINE BERNSTEIN I. BACKGROUND On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff Carter John Thomas Hasbrook (Plaintiff) initiated this lawsuit against his former wife, Defendant Monica Cione Hasbrook (Defendant) for physical injury damages incurred during a physical attack arising out of the dissolution of their marriage. On July 14, 2023, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff alleging that Plaintiff drugged her as she recovered at Huntington Hospital following being struck by a bus. (Gillick Decl., Exh. 1, ¶ 9.) Discovery has revealed records that Defendants sister Caroline Bernstein, a non-party to this action, called the hospital alleging that the parties were using heroin prior to the bus accident and that Plaintiff was the source of the drugs. (Gillick Decl., Exh. 3.) Plaintiff now moves to compel non-party Bernstein to provide responses to Plaintiffs deposition subpoena and request for production of records to corroborate the allegations that he supplied heroin to Defendant. Plaintiff argues that he served Bernstein with a valid subpoena on April 2, 2024, that required Bernstein to produce records by April 18, 2024. Plaintiff argues that no response was received, leading to Plaintiffs process server, Titan Legal Service to mail follow up letters to Bernstein demanding compliance. (Motion, p. 4.) The motion is unopposed. II. MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA A. Legal Standard A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) A service of a deposition subpoena shall be effected a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a).) Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).) A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior order of the court directing compliance by the witness. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.) A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.) B. Discussion Plaintiff asserts that Bernstein has apparent knowledge of the situation and made claims to a hospital employee that incriminate him against Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that a licensed social worker at Huntington Hospital spoke with Bernstein over the phone on July 27, 2021, and Bernstein stated that Defendant used heroin before the accident and her ex-husband (Plaintiff) brought it to her. (Mot., p. 3.) Defendant provides proof of service showing personal service upon Bernstein with the deposition subpoena on April 2, 2024. (Gillick Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 4.) There has been no objection filed to the subpoena for Bernsteins deposition, nor has any opposition or motion to quash been filed. III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted. Third party Caroline Bernstein is ordered to comply with the subpoena served on her on April 2, 2024. Moving party is ordered to give notice. Dated this 10 th day of July 2024 Hon. Jared D. Moses Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 21STCV32886 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 56 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT OLLYE G. INGRAM, et al. , Plaintiffs, vs. ANTHONY THOMPSON, et al. , Defendants. CASE NO.: 21STCV32886 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT CENTAURUS FINANCIAL, INC.S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE), AND FOR SANCTIONS Date: July 11, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Ollye G. Ingram; Holda M. Novelo; Esther Dorothy Farmer; Steven B. Friedman; J. Roger Gorski; Charles Klipp and Margo Klipp; Beatrice Vogel; Nickolas W. Vogel; Joachin D. Reich; and Raymond Jallow (collectively, Plaintiffs) RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Centaurus) The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. BACKGROUND This action stems from an allegedly failed private placement investment in the Spring Gate Plaza Delaware Statutory Trust (Spring Gate DST). Plaintiffs operative Second Amended Complaint, filed on February 25, 2022, asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and various statutory, tort and contract claims against multiple defendants, including Centaurus. On February 17, 2023, Plaintiffs served their Requests for Production, Set One (RFPs) on Centaurus. (Declaration of Marc S. Ehrlich in Support of Plaintiffs Renewed Motion to Compel Further Responses (Ehrlich Decl.), ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs assert that Centaurus served unverified, objection-only responses to Plaintiffs RFPs. ( Id. , ¶ 4.) On July 7, 2023, the parties stipulated to and participated in an Informal Discovery Conference held by the Court, where parties stipulated to the entry of the following order (IDC Order): Defendant Centaurus Financial, Inc. (CFI) will serve further, complete, substantive, Code-compliant and verified responses (Further Reponses) to Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Admissions (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) (including production of Bates-stamped documents, which shall be identified in the written discovery responses) by close of business August 7, 2023; and Plaintiffs shall serve Further Responses to CFIs Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Admissions (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) (including production of Bates-stamped documents, which shall be identified in the written discovery responses) by close of business August 7, 2023. On October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with the Courts IDC Order, alleging that Centaurus served unverified supplemental responses to the RFPs that still consisted almost entirely of objections. (Ehrlich Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. F.) Centaurus subsequently served a second supplemental response to the RFPs on November 17, 2023. ( Id. , ¶12, Exh. I.) Plaintiffs filed this Renewed Motion to Compel Further Responses and for Sanctions (the Motion) on April 12, 2024, asserting that Centaurus Second Supplemental Responses do not cure the deficiencies in its previous responses, and are still not Code-compliant. On July 2, 2024, Centaurus filed its opposition to the Motion. Plaintiffs submitted a late reply on July 9, 2024. DISCUSSION Legal Standard A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (per Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040) demonstrating a reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. ( Id. , §§ 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).) They must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. ( Id. , rule 3.1345(c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. Good cause may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. ( Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-588; CCP §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) (Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.); Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 (noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence).) Motion Plaintiffs assert that Centaurus second supplemental responses do not comply with the Code for the following reasons: (1) Centaurus failed to provide complete due diligence files as requested and improperly withheld known/identified responsive documents; (2) Centaurus responses to certain RFPs consisting of N/A do not indicate whether the requested documents do not exist or whether Centaurus is objecting to the requests and is refusing to produce such documents; and (3) Centaurus responses to certain RFPs merely including Bates ranges do not indicate whether Centaurus is producing and/or has produced all or part of the responsive documents currently in its possession, custody, or control; and (4) Centaurus responses also advance meritless and boilerplate objections. Opposition In its opposition, Centaurus claims that it complied with the IDC Order by producing the due diligence file concerning Spring Gate DST consisting of 40,806 pages of documents. Centaurus argues that it identified Bates stamp ranges for documents responsive to Plaintiffs RFPs, in accordance with the IDC Order which expressly indicated for Centaurus to do so. (Declaration of Lucas E. Garcia in Support of Opposition to the Motion (Garcia Decl.), ¶¶ 9-13.) Regarding its N/A responses to certain RFPs, Centaurus explained that its second supplemental response was meant to supplement and not supplant its first supplemental response, and that the two responses should be read in tandem. It clarified that where the second supplemental response stated N/A, it meant that the particular response was not being supplemented beyond the first supplemental response. Centaurus further asserts that the IDC Order did not specify for it to respond to Plaintiffs RFPs without objections, and that it has rightfully objected based on the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, among others. Importantly, Centaurus acknowledged that it withheld certain documents, but that it did so because the withheld documents are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges, and that it properly disclosed the existence of those privileged materials. Centaurus asserts that the only documents that were withheld are privileged documents. Centaurus responses are not Code-compliant Cal. Code of Civil Proc., (CCP) § 2031.240 provides: a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category. (b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted. (c) (1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log. (CCP §2031.240.) Initially, the written responses, including the supplemental responses to the RFPs are not Code-compliant. They not include the statutory language, including instead vague portions of the required language such as Centaurus will produce non-privileged, non-objectionable documents responsive to this request to the extent they can be located within its possession, custody, or control after a reasonably diligent search (Response to RFP 58.) Such language first implies that no such reasonably diligent search (instead of the required diligent search and reasonable inquiry) has in fact been conducted as of the time of the response, but also that only non-objectionable responsive documents (whatever that means) will be produced. This initial inadequate response is then supplemented by lists of documents, without any verified response that the documents being produced constitute all of the documents (diligently searched for) responsive to the RFP. The Court also notes that nowhere do the responses state that all responsive documents are being produced, only that Centaurus will produce non-privilege, non-objectionable documents will be produced. It must be clear from the response that all responsive documents will be produced, except for those identified with specificity and by Bates number in the privilege log discussed below. Moreover, because Centaurus claims that certain withheld documents are privileged, its response must also but does not currently include enough factual information for the other parties to assess the merits of that claim. Centaurus must serve a privilege log on Plaintiffs, and no privilege log was not included in its responses. It is the burden of the party seeking to withhold documents based on the attorney-client or work product privilege to establish the facts establishing the privilege. ( D.I Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 729; Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 123. The privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination as to whether a withheld document is, in fact, privileged. ( Wellpoint Health Networks, supra, at 130.) The privilege log must provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the documents date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted. ( Catalina Island Yacht Club v Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130.) Therefore, the entire response (including the supplemental response) is inadequate and not Code-compliant and is hereby ordered to be supplemented with a full, verified, Code-compliant response to each RFP. To the extent that any documents are identified in those supplemental responses as assertedly privileged, they must be identified on a privilege log. All ordered further responses, together with a privilege log and any supplemental produced documents are to be served on Plaintiffs within twenty days of the date of this order. Monetary Sanctions If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel further, the court shall impose a monetary 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. (CCP §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).) Since Centaurus responses are not Code-compliant, sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions in the total amount of $12,290. (Ehrlich Decl., ¶¶ 17-25.) The Court exercises its discretion and imposes monetary sanctions against Centaurus and its counsel, jointly and severally, in the reasonable amount of $3,100, consisting of 5 hours at $400 plus 2 hours at $550. This amount is due to be paid to Plaintiffs within twenty days of the date of this order. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. Dated this 11th day of July 2024 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

S-CV-0052422 Privalov, Sergey vs. Bennett Engineering Services Inc. No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/14/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Bennett Engineering Services Inc.; Michel, Brandon Robert Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Bennett Engineering Services Inc.; Michel, Brandon Robert

Case Number: 22STCV09946 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 52 Plaintiff Lauren Taxters Motions to Compel: (1) Deposition of Defendants Person Most Qualified, (2) Responses to Form Interrogatories, (3) Responses to Special Interrogatories Motion to Compel Deposition Plaintiff Lauren Taxter moves to compel the deposition of defendant 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLCs person most qualified on several matters of examination. Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) provides, If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action & without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, & the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponents attendance and testimony. Plaintiff does not show defendant failed to appear for a deposition. Plaintiff served a notice of deposition of defendants person most qualified on several topics for March 2, 2024, which was a Saturday. (Gabrielyan Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Plaintiff served an amended notice of deposition to take place on March 11. ( Id. , ¶ 5, Ex. B.) Before that date, plaintiff agreed to reschedule the deposition. (Motion, p. 5.) Defendants counsel did not respond to plaintiffs counsels requests for alternate dates to depose defendants person most qualified. (Gabrielyan Decl., ¶¶ 7-9, Ex. C.) Plaintiff did not, however, serve a second amended notice of deposition for which defendant failed to appear. Plaintiff agreed to reschedule the deposition. Failing to provide alternate dates for a deposition is not the same as failing to appear at a properly noticed deposition. I t may be a professional courtesy to mutually schedule a deposition, but the Civil Discovery Act does not require that. An oral deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 10 days after service of the deposition notice. (CCP § 2025.270(a).) The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action& to attend and to testify. (CCP § 2025.280(a).) Plaintiff had to serve a new notice of deposition. If defendant did not appear on the date as noticed, then plaintiff could move to compel the deposition. Motions to Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories Plaintiff Lauren Taxter moves to compel defendant 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC to respond to form interrogatories, set seven and special interrogatories, set one. When the responding party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) Failing to serve a timely response waives any objection to the interrogatories. (Id., subd. (a).) Plaintiff served form interrogatories - general, set seven and special interrogatories, set one, on defendant on January 26, 2024. (Gabrielyan Decls., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Plaintiffs counsel agreed to extend defendants deadline to respond to March 7. ( Id. , ¶ 7.) Defendant had not served any responses as of May 14, when plaintiff filed these motions. ( Id. , ¶ 11.) Defendant did not serve a timely response to plaintiffs form interrogatories, set seven and special interrogatories, set one. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling defendant to serve verified responses without objections to the interrogatories. On each motion, plaintiff moves for $1,460 in sanctions against defendant. Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process subject to monetary sanctions. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Defendant failed to respond to plaintiffs interrogatories. It did not act with substantial justification. Sanctions are just under the circumstances. Plaintiff, however, did not reasonably incur $1,460 in expenses for each motion. These expenses include 2 hours of attorney fees at $350 hourly anticipated for reviewing defendants oppositions and preparing replies. (Gabrielyan Decls., ¶ 12.) Defendant did not file an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply. The court therefore reduces the sanctions by $700 on each motion. Disposition Plaintiff Lauren Taxters motion to compel defendants deposition is denied . Plaintiff Lauren Taxters motion to compel defendant 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC to respond to form interrogatories, set seven, is granted . Defendant 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to form interrogatories general, set seven, within 20 days. Defendant 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC is ordered to pay plaintiff Lauren Taxter $760 in sanctions within 20 days. Plaintiff Lauren Taxters motion to compel defendant 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC to respond to special interrogatories, set one, is granted . Defendant 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to plaintiffs special interrogatories, set one, within 20 days. Defendant 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC is ordered to pay plaintiff Lauren Taxter $760 in sanctions within 20 days.

MARQUEZ VS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CVSW2310812 TUTTOILMONDO SANCTIONS Tentative Ruling: The Motion is DENIED. There are no new facts or law. Plaintiff fails to set forth a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that she was not served with the motion to compel further responses. Plaintiff’s motion fails to set forth a sufficient evidentiary basis on which to determine that she was not served with the motion to compel further responses. Her declaration states that defendant’s counsel “false[ly] claimed to have mailed me their motion” (Marquez declaration, p. 4, ln. 19), but fails to provide any details regarding plaintiff’s practice of monitoring and reviewing her mail such that it could reasonably be concluded that she did not receive the motion, let alone that it was not sent. Meanwhile, there is a valid proof of service attached to the discovery motion and supplemental evidence in the Espinoza declaration submitted in opposition to this motion to support a finding that the motion was properly served. Plaintiff in her reply does not dispute that she was actually aware of the motion by the time of the hearing but provides no explanation for why she did not object or ask for a continuance if she had not received actual notice of the motion in time to file an opposition.