Rose Adele Cavanagh v. Pacifica SL Santa Clarita LLC

(Chatsworth Courthouse: Dept. F47) August 26, 2026

Date: 8/26/26 Case #23CHCV02028 MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Motion filed on 2/26/26. MOVING ATTORNEY: Joshua R. Kohanbash CLIENT: Plaintiff Celedonio Solorzano Arroyo RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Joshua R. Kohanbash as counsel for Plaintiff Celedonio Solorzano Arroyo in this action. RULING: The motion is granted.

On 2/26/26, attorney Joshua R. Kohanbash filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Celedonio Solorzano Arroyo in this action due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, including loss of communication with the client. The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 7/9/26. The proof of service for the motion indicates that the motion papers were mailed to the client at 13571 Rayen St., Pacoima, CA 91331 on 2/24/26 via United States mail. (See Proof of Service filed 2/26/26). No other party has appeared in the action.

Because the declaration filed in support of the motion indicates that the client was served by mail with the motion papers at the client's last known address, but did not state the address was confirmed within the 30 days before the motion was filed and there was no response to the motion by the client, the tentative ruling was to deny the motion without prejudice. (See Declaration, No.3.a.(2), b.(1); CRC 3.1362(d)(2)).

However, at the 7/9/26 hearing, the client/Plaintiff appeared and confirmed that his current address is 13571 Rayen Street, Arleta, CA 91311. (See 7/9/26 Minute Order). Therefore, the Court finds that the client had proper notice of the 7/9/26 hearing and grants the motion.

Case Number: 23CHCV02301 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: F47 Dept. F47 Date: 8/26/26 TRIAL DATE: 6/28/27 Case #23CHCV02301

MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 1 Motion filed on 4/10/26. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rose Adele Cavanagh RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Pacifica SL Santa Clarita LLC dba Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita erroneously sued as Pacifica Senior Living aka Pacifica Senior Living Newhall aka Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED: An order imposing the following sanctions on Defendant Pacifica SL Santa Clarita LLC dba Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita erroneously sued as Pacifica Senior Living aka Pacifica Senior Living Newhall aka Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita (Defendant): (1) Issue Sanctions: that Defendant be prohibited from opposing Plaintiff's claims of Dependent and Elder Abuse/Neglect, Willful Misconduct, Negligence, Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof.

Code Sec.Sec. 17200, et seq.), and Battery; (2) Evidence Sanctions: that Defendant be prohibited from introducing evidence of Plaintiff's discovery responses, the deposition testimony of Dr. Tarek Bittar, the deposition testimony of Dr. Matthew Lefferman, the deposition testimony of any fact witness, the deposition testimony of any expert witness, the trial testimony of any fact witness, and the trial testimony of any expert witness; (3) Terminating Sanctions: that Defendant's Answer To Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint For Damages be stricken and that a judgment by default be entered against Defendant; or (4) Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set 1, Nos. 3-4 and 6-8, along with verifications.

Additionally, Plaintiff also requests an order requiring Defendant and its counsel, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, to pay $2,660.00 as the reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff for this motion. RULING: The motion is denied, in part, and granted, in part, as set forth below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action arises from the care and services provided to Plaintiff Rose Adele Cavanagh (Plaintiff) beginning on 7/24/20 while she was a resident at Defendant Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita (the Facility), a residential care facility for the elderly.

Plaintiff alleges that all defendants owned, operated, managed and/or controlled the Facility and were Plaintiff's "care custodians." (SAC P.P.11, 14-15). The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Dependent and Elder Abuse/Neglect, (2) Willful Misconduct, (3) Negligence, (4) Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.) and (5) Battery.

On 3/7/24, Plaintiff served Defendant Pacifica SL Santa Clarita LLC dba Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita erroneously sued as Pacifica Senior Living aka Pacifica Senior Living Newhall aka Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita (Defendant) with Special Interrogatories, Set 1. (Conlogue Decl., Ex.1). On 4/9/24, Plaintiff granted Defendant an extension to respond to the discovery until 4/24/24. (Conlogue Decl. P.13). On 4/24/24, Defendant electronically served unverified responses to the discovery requests. (Conlogue Decl. P.14, Ex.2).

On 6/20/24, Plaintiff filed and served a motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories which was granted, in part, on 2/14/25. Defendant was ordered to provide further, verified responses, within 30 days, to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 3-10, and was ordered to provide verifications for all responses (Conlogue Decl., Ex.3, p.15). Defendant did not serve the ordered responses within 30 days. (Conlogue Decl. P.16).

On 4/7/25, Defendant Pacifica Senior Living Management, LLC filed a notice of bankruptcy which automatically stayed this matter. On 7/24/25, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California granted relief from the automatic stay. On 8/4/25, this Court granted Plaintiff's ex parte application to lift the stay in this action. (Conlogue Decl. P.12).

On 9/18/25, Plaintiff filed and served a motion for sanctions based on Defendant's failure to comply with this Court's 2/14/25 order. On 2/27/26, the date an opposition was due to that motion, Defendant served unverified amended discovery responses with verification being served on 3/9/26, the day before the hearing on the motion. (Conlogue Decl. P.P.17-18, Ex.4).

Plaintiff contends that Defendant's further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3-4 and 6-8 were still deficient. During the meet and confer process, Defendant agreed to provide further responses to the subject interrogatories by 3/30/26. (Conlogue Decl. P.21, Ex.7). As of the filing of the instant motion on 4/10/26, Defendant failed to provide the further responses promised or pay the sanctions ordered by the Court. (Conlogue Decl. P.P.22-23).

On 4/10/26, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order imposing the following sanctions on Defendant: (1) Issue Sanctions: that Defendant be prohibited from opposing Plaintiff's claims of Dependent and Elder Abuse/Neglect, Willful Misconduct, Negligence, Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.Sec. 17200, et seq.), and Battery; (2) Evidence Sanctions: that Defendant be prohibited from introducing evidence of Plaintiff's discovery responses, the deposition testimony of Dr.

Tarek Bittar, the deposition testimony of Dr. Matthew Lefferman, the deposition testimony of any fact witness, the deposition testimony of any expert witness, the trial testimony of any fact witness, and the trial testimony of any expert witness; (3) Terminating Sanctions: that Defendant's Answer To Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint For Damages be stricken and that a judgment by default be entered against Defendant; or (4) Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set 1, Nos. 3-4 and 6-8, along with verifications.

Additionally, Plaintiff also requests an order requiring Defendant and its counsel, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, to pay $2,660.00 as the reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff for this motion. Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS Terminating sanctions, including striking a party's answer and entering default judgment against that party are warranted for that party's failure to comply with a court's discovery order. See CCP 2023.010(g); CCP 2023.030(d); CCP 2030.300(e); CCP 2031.310(i). Similarly, issue and/or evidence sanctions can be imposed for the same misconduct. CCP 2023.030(b), (c); CCP 2030.300(e); CCP 2031.310(i).

On 8/3/26, Defendant finally provided further, verified responses to the Special Interrogatories. (Jung Decl. P.3; Reply, p.2:9-10). It has been approximately two and a half years from the time the discovery was served. Additionally, the stay was lifted over a year ago. Further, the evidence indicates that Defendant agreed to provide further responses by 3/30/26. Despite the foregoing, the opposition provides no explanation/excuse for the extremely belated further responses served less than a month before the hearing on this motion.

Due to the service of the further responses, the Court declines to impose the issue, evidence and/or terminating sanctions requested at this time. However, the Court finds that additional monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant's counsel are warranted in the amount of $1,847.50 (3.25 hours multiplied by $550/hour + $60 filing fee). See CCP 2023.010(e), (f), (h); CCP 2023.030(a); CCP 2030.300(e); (See Conlogue Decl. P.25).

While the Court is not imposing issue, evidence and/or terminating sanctions at this time, the Court notes that the record shows that Defendant has a history of repeatedly failing to comply with its discovery obligations and/or court orders regarding same. Defendant and its counsel are placed on notice that based on this history, the Court may impose such sanctions for future failures to timely comply with discovery obligations and/or court orders regarding same, even if Defendant complies at the 11 th hour.

CONCLUSION The request for issue, evidence and/or terminating sanctions is denied. The request for an order compelling further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3-4 and 6-8 is deemed moot due to the service of further, verified responses on 8/3/26. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,847.50 are imposed against Defendant Pacifica SL Santa Clarita LLC dba Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita erroneously sued as Pacifica Senior Living aka Pacifica Senior Living Newhall aka Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita and its counsel, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, payable within 30 days.

The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4), Plaintiff's counsel has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the motion. Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this requirement in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be refiled in compliance, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

Dept. F47 Date: 8/26/26 TRIAL DATE: 6/28/27 Case #23CHCV02301 MOTION FOR ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET 1 Motion filed on 4/10/26. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rose Adele Cavanagh RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Pacifica SL Santa Clarita LLC dba Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita erroneously sued as Pacifica Senior Living aka Pacifica Senior Living Newhall aka Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED: An order imposing the following sanctions on Defendant Pacifica SL Santa Clarita LLC dba Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita erroneously sued as Pacifica Senior Living aka Pacifica Senior Living Newhall aka Pacifica Senior Living Santa Clarita (Defendant): (1) Issue Sanctions: that Defendant be prohibited from opposing Plaintiff's claims of Dependent and Elder Abuse/Neglect, Willful Misconduct, Negligence, Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof.

Code Sec.Sec. 17200, et seq.), and Battery; (2) Evidence Sanctions: that Defendant be prohibited from introducing evidence of Plaintiff's discovery responses, the deposition testimony of Dr. Tarek Bittar,