Unknown

The court does have a problem, though. The court cannot start the trial on September 11, but it may be able to start the trial on September 14. The court will, however, need a good and firm estimate on the length. The court will be dark starting September 21, so if the case is not in the jury's hands by week's end (likely meaning Thursday) then the court would need to declare a mistrial. If the parties are confident that they can meet that deadline, the court is prepared to go forward. If not, the court will discuss the matter further with the parties. The court might also be able to see if there is another department in Santa Monica that can hear the case on September 14, and the court will discuss that with the parties as well. The court will defer ruling on the in limine motions until after the above discussion.

Plaintiff asserts that there is another case--originally filed back in 2016--that is intertwined with this one. The cases were earlier related, but after plaintiff filed a 170.6 against the other judge, Department 1 unrelated the cases. The other case has gone to trial and is now on appeal. According to plaintiff, many of the issues raised here are at issue there. Specifically, plaintiffs here claim conversion based on defendant's cashing of old checks for rent that plaintiffs assert was no longer due or truly owing.

The jury apparently went the other way in the other case. The court agrees that it makes sense to allow the appeal to run its course. That decision might moot this case, or it might at least moot out some issues. Any rulings there would likely be res judicata or collateral estoppel here once final. Therefore, the court will VACATE THE FSC AND TRIAL DATES. The court will set a status conference for a time after the appeal ought to be over. However, this is not a stay. All other deadlines remain in place, and discovery is not stayed absent stipulation of the parties approved by the court or motion.

Case Number: 24SMCV05129 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: I

This is a motion to compel further brought by cross complainant Gilinski against defendant Kenig. The response by Kenig is essentially that everything that was a problem has since been rectified and the motion is essentially moot. The court will inquire as to the production. If it is now complete, that is something and moots out that part of the motion. The court agrees with the moving party as to "if any." That is not an appropriate qualifier. If there are no responsive documents, then a statement under 2031.230 is required.

If some documents can be produced but others cannot, then a statement of compliance is required as well as a statement under 2031.230. If all responsive documents are being produced, then "if any" has no meaning. However, the court puts little weight on this if the statement is made on the theory that in the time available the responding party has not completed the search for documents and plans to supplement with a 2031.230 statement (verified) if appropriate. "Available from others" is