Storke Ranch Master Association v. Janice Bilotti
Storke Ranch Master Association v. Janice Bilotti
Case Number
22CV02623
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 10/23/2023 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Motion for Issue and Monetary Sanctions
Tentative Ruling
Storke Ranch Master Association v. Janice Bilotti
Case No. 22CV02623
Hearing Date: October 16, 2023
HEARING: Plaintiff’s Motion for Issue and Monetary Sanctions
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Storke Ranch Master Association: Christopher E. Haskell and Shannon D. Boyd
For Defendant Janice Bilotti, Individually and as Trustee of the Janice Bilotti Revocable Trust Dated May 19, 2005: Self Represented
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $2,550.00 against defendant and in favor of plaintiff, to be paid no later than November 1, 2023. Plaintiff is to comply with the court order of July 10, 2023, by serving complete, code compliant, responses no later than November 1, 2023.
Background:
This action was commenced on July 11, 2022, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Storke Ranch Master Association (“plaintiff”) against defendant Janice Bilotti, Individually and as Trustee of the Janice Bilotti Revocable Trust Dated May 19, 2005 (“defendant”). The complaint contains causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Negligence; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (5) Injunctive Relief.
As alleged in the complaint: Defendant is the title holder and resident of 6838 Silkberry Lane, Goleta. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) As a member of plaintiff homeowner association, defendant is subject to and must follow the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of plaintiff (“CC&R’s”). (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff alleges the following violations of the CC&R’s: (1) Violating the fence height restriction and submitting a fraudulent request for a medical exemption (Id. at ¶¶ 14-19); (2) Exceeding the maximum residential occupancy restrictions by renting out portions of her three-bedroom home, by making certain interior modifications to divide interior space to create additional bedrooms, to as many as 10 to 20 students at a time (Id. at ¶¶ 20-24); (3) Illegally converting the garage, with a kitchen and living space, and installing numerous outdoor structures including a shed used as a bedroom (Id. at ¶¶ 25-32); and defendant has refused to allow a duly authorized agent of plaintiff’s architectural committee to enter and inspect the home despite a provision in the CC&Rs allowing for such an inspection (Id. at ¶¶ 33-39.).
Defendant filed her answer to the complaint on October 12, 2022, asserting a general denial and affirmative defenses including: (1) Statute of Limitations; (2) Laches; (3) Breach of Contract by Plaintiff; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Statute of Frauds; (6) Unclean Hands; (7) Duress/Undue Influence; and (8) Lack of Acceptance. Defendant also claims that she has lived in and owned her home for 19 years, her vines and fence height have been the same for 19 years, she has rented out spare rooms to UCSB students and professors for 16 years, she is current on all dues and fees, she is a registered nurse who suffers from a mental health disorder, she has had a shed in her backyard for 5 years, and she does not have a dorm in her home.
On October 19, 2022, plaintiff served defendant with form interrogatories, set one (“FIs”). On November 1, 2022, plaintiff served defendant with requests for production of documents, set one (“RFPs”). On November 8, 2022, plaintiff served defendant with a demand for inspection of real property with respect to 6838 Silkberry Lane, Goleta.
Following agreed upon extensions, defendant provided responses to the FIs on December 23, 2022. Defendant provided responses to the RFPs on January 3, 2023. On January 2, 2023, defendant sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel objecting to the demand for inspection of real property.
On January 10, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel sent defendant a meet and confer letter outlining the deficiencies in her responses to the FIs, RFPs, and explained why plaintiff was entitled to conduct an inspection of defendant’s home. Defendant did not respond to the meet and confer letter.
Plaintiff moved for, among other relief, an order to compel further responses to the RFPs. At that time, no sanctions were requested. The motion was granted on July 10, 2023, and defendant was given until July 31, 2023, to provide complete, code compliant, further responses. Defendant was present at the hearing. Thereafter, she was served with a notice of ruling.
On July 31, 2023, defendant served further responses to the RFPs. Plaintiff contends that the responses are still deficient and fail to comply with the court order. (Haskell Dec., ¶ 8 & Exh. 3.) Plaintiff sent defendant a meet and confer letter on August 8, 2023, addressing the issues with the responses, and gave defendant until August 22, 2023, to respond to the letter. (Haskell Dec., ¶ 9 & Exh. 4.)
On August 22, 2023, defendant sent plaintiff a letter indicating that she does not have any further documents to provide and that she has responded to the best of her ability. (Haskell Dec., ¶ 10 & Exh. 5.)
Plaintiff now moves for issue and monetary sanctions, arguing that defendant has not complied with the court order of July 10, 2023, with respect to RFP Nos 14 and 15.
Analysis:
The order of July 10, 2023, specifically informed defendant of what she must include in the responses for them to be code compliant. Specifically, defendant was informed: “The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:
“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .
“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or
“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)
As the court previously instructed defendant: “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Further, defendant must attach a code compliant verification to her responses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.250, subdivision (a).
Defendant responded in substantially the same manner which was addressed in the initial motion to compel further responses. Those responses were found to be incomplete and improper. For example: In response to RFP No. 14, defendant was asked to produce “[a]ny and all lease agreements for the property from January 1, 2006 to the present.” Defendant originally responded: “Has been misplaced.” Defendant’s further response states: “Lease agreements from January 1, 2006 to present have been lost, misplaced or no longer in my possession.” The response to RFP No. 15 contains substantially the same language.
Defendant has failed to comply with the court order requiring her to provide complete, code compliant, further responses to the RFPs. In addition to the court explaining to defendant what must be included in the responses, plaintiff’s counsel has also explained it to her and has provided the relevant code sections by way of their meet and confer letters.
Sanctions are warranted.
Sanctions available for disobeying a court order to provide discovery responses include: (1) Monetary sanctions; (2) Issue sanctions; (3) Evidence sanctions; (4) Terminating sanctions; and (5) Contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.030.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), provides: “The 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. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. 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.”
“If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)
“A court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty” for a party’s refusal to obey a discovery order. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Despite this broad discretion, the courts have long recognized that the terminating sanction is a drastic penalty and should be used sparingly. A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a party’s fundamental right to a trial, thus implicating due process rights.
“While sanctions are discretionary, the term judicial discretion implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition, or whimsical thinking. It imports the exercise of discriminating judgment within the bounds of reason. To exercise the power of judicial discretion, all the material facts must be known and considered, together also with the legal principles essential to an informed, intelligent and just decision. [Citation.] Therefore, the court must examine the entire record in determining whether the ultimate sanction should be imposed. [Citations.]” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796.)
As no previous sanctions have been ordered against defendant for her failure to provide proper responses to discovery, the court does not find that it would be appropriate to impose issue sanctions as the first sanctions.
At this juncture, the court finds that defendant has not acted with substantial justification in failing to obey its July 10, 2023, order and no other circumstances make the imposition of monetary sanctions unjust.
Plaintiff seeks $3,795.00 in sanctions. The requested sanctions include the following: (1) Seven hours researching and preparing the motion, declaration, proposed order and separate statement, by attorney Shannon DeNatale Boyd, at $415.00 per hour; (2) Two hours for attorney Haskell on the motion, at $415 per hour; (3) An anticipated two additional hours to prepare for and attend the hearing; and (4) A $60.00 filing fee for the motion. The court finds the hourly rate reasonable. However, the court does not find nine hours to prepare a simple, routine, motion reasonable. The court will allow five hours of time for the preparation of the motion and accompanying documents, one hour to prepare for and attend the hearing, and the $60.00 filing fee. As such, sanctions in the amount of $2,550.00 will be awarded in favor of plaintiff.