CU15-081153, Bear Yuba Land Trust v. Nudelman, 2/11/16
This tentative ruling is issued by Judge Linda J. Sloven. If oral argument is requested, such oral argument shall be heard on Thursday, February 11, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. VI. CourtCall is permitted.
Motion to Strike
Cross-Defendant Bear Yuba Land Trust’s (“BYLT”) Motion to Strike Portions of Cross-Complainant Nudelman’s Cross-Complaint is granted with leave to amend.
The motion to strike is granted because there is no contract between the parties which permits attorney’s fees, and Cross-Complainant failed to set forth which statute supports attorney’s fees. See CCP §1021.
Leave to amend is granted so that Cross-Complainant, if desired, may plead facts in support of its request for attorney’s fees pursuant to CCP §1021.
Any amended Cross-Complaint shall be served and filed by February 25, 2016. The court notes that consistent with the previously issued (but not formally adopted) tentative ruling a First Amended Cross Complaint was filed on January 20, 2016.
Motion to Compel
Plaintiff BYLT’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Crown Tree (“Crown”) is granted in part and denied in part.
As to the Request for Admissions, Defendant shall provide further responses to items 1 and 2. The questions are sufficiently clear and specific such that defendant can formulate a response, even if the response must be qualified.
As to the Form Interrogatories, the motion to compel is granted as to all interrogatories at issue, including Interrogatory 17.0. Defendant shall separately respond to each and every interrogatory including each subpart. As to Interrogatory 15.1, the objections are overruled. The court recognizes that Crown filed supplemental answers prior to the hearing. Crown shall ensure that it has filed or does file supplemental responses that fully comply with the order herein.
As to the Demands for Inspection, the motion is granted as to demands 1-22, excluding demand 5. Defendant must state that a diligent search and inquiry took place. To the extent Defendant contends that there are public documents responsive to any requests, Defendant must list those public documents. Defendant’s vagueness objections are overruled. As to demand 5, the vagueness objection is sustained. The demand does not specify who purportedly was the author or maker of the writings or public statements requested.
As to the Special Interrogatories, the motion is granted as to Interrogatory Nos. 22-29. Defendant shall answer the questions as they are not vague or ambiguous. As to Interrogatory No. 22, defendant shall state whether said trees were cut at Michael Nudelman’s directive. As to Interrogatory Nos. 35, 37, 38, and 42, the motion is granted. Defendant’s objections are without merit.
Verified Supplemental Responses shall be served by February 25, 2016.
Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012). The requests for sanctions are granted as to Defendant, Crown Tree, with respect to the Requests for Interrogatories and Requests for Admission but denied as to the Request for Production/Demand for Inspection. Sanctions are payable by Defendant Crown Tree to Plaintiff BYLT in the sum of $560.00 by February 25, 2016.
Moving party’s attorney is to submit a formal order that sets out verbatim the tentative ruling herein and complies with California Rule of Court 3.1312 and is thereafter to prepare, file and serve notice of order.
This is the Court’s tentative ruling. In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and thereafter notify the court’s law and motion secretary at (530) 265-1273 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.
Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense. Local Rule 10.00.3B.