Travis Twining et al vs Ronnie Mellen

Case Number

24CV02434

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; 2 Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

Attorney for Plaintiffs: John Thyne; Adam T. Carralejo

Attorney for Defendants: Lora Hemphill

Issues

CMC; 2 Motions to Compel

RULING

The Motions

These are two unopposed discovery motions, both filed on October 2, 2025: (1) motion of Defendant Ronnie Haran Mellen to compel Plaintiffs Travis Twining, Amanda Winn-Twining, and Helen Rose Twining to serve responses to Request for Production, Set Two; and motion of Defendant Ronnie Haran Mellen to compel Plaintiffs Travis Twining, Amanda Winn-Twining, and Helen Rose Twining to serve responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two. Both motions are GRANTED compelling Plaintiffs to serve verified written responses without objection and to produce all documents identified in the responses to be produced. Both motions seek monetary sanctions. In view of the duplication between the motions and the lack of opposition, total monetary sanctions are awarded as reasonable fees and costs in the amount of $1,137.50.

The CMC

The MSC date of 1/16/26 is confirmed.

The Trial date of 2/11/26 is confirmed. The jury panel selection begins 2/12/26; all trial documents including customized jury instructions, jury verdict form; in limine motions; witness and exhibit list and trial briefs to be submitted one week before the trial date. The suggestion that the trial date may have to be continued is not going to be embraced. This case was filed in May 2024, and it is not complicated litigation. It should not languish beyond the 21 months already scheduled. On 9/4/24 the trial date was set for 8/6/25. The dates were confirmed on 11/6/24. But on 5/13/25 the lawyers stipulated to continue the trial date to the current trial date. The Court did not set the dates; the lawyers did. There are very experienced competent lawyers on this case and the Court is not going to continue the trial date a second time. The clients and the judicial system deserve to get this case resolved.

Background

CMCS’s filed.

By Plaintiff: Complaint was filed on 5/1/24; Plaintiffs own and reside in a home that was severely damaged by water and debris running into their property from Defendant's property. Acknowledges the MSC and Trial Date; estimates a 5 day jury trial.

By Defendant: Plaintiffs claim that due to landscaping performed by Defendant in December 2023, during a heavy rainstorm on March 30, 2024, a significant amount of mulch and debris "trespassed" from the rental home owned by Defendant across Santa Rosa Lane Rd. to Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs claim this overwhelmed their storm drains, causing damage to Plaintiffs' real and personal property. Defendant denies that any landscaping or gardening performed on their property caused any additional water or debris to flow onto Plaintiffs' property and deny all liability to Plaintiffs. The cause of the flooding is the construction of Plaintiffs' property including the driveway and inadequate drainage. Acknowledges the MSC and Trial Date; estimates a 10 day jury trial. Reports Plaintiffs failed to provide supplemental discovery responses and responses to special interrogatories set two and requests for production of documents, set three. Defendant anticipates needing to file motions to compel. No depositions have been taken. Plaintiffs’ depositions have been noticed and Plaintiffs' counsel indicated they may need to be rescheduled. Inspections of Plaintiffs property are pending. Defendant believes a trial continuance may be necessary. Plaintiffs made changes to the drainage at their property following the flooding and have not provided information to Defendant regarding who performed that work. Defendant needs to conduct discovery regarding the drainage at Plaintiffs' property.