Roux v. 131 Olive Street

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. B) September 11, 2026 DEPARTMENT B LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff before the set hearing time. See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).

Roux v. 131 Olive Street, Case no. 23STCV31522 Hearing date September 11, 2026 Defendant 131 Olive Street's Omnibus Discovery Motion Plaintiffs Roux and Chestnut, successors in interest to decedent P. Chestnut, sue defendant 131 Olive Street, LLC for injuries to plaintiffs' decedent, who tripped and fell on defendant's property. Defendant 131 Olive filed an omnibus discovery motion, now moot, and seeks monetary sanctions. See 8/6/26 Notice. Plaintiffs oppose. Defendant seeks sanctions of $3,210, arguing such are mandatory under Code Civ. Proc. Sec.2023.030 for misuse of the discovery process. Defendant asserts plaintiffs failed to serve verified responses to discovery served on 7/23/24 and 12/11/25. See Decl. Karsaz, paras. 5-8. Defendant asserts no verified responses to the 12/11/25 discovery were received at the time this motion was filed. Id. at para.

16. Verified responses to the 7/23/24 discovery were served 10/21/24 (Decl. Miles, para. 2, exh. A), and responses to the 12/11/25 discovery were served 1/30/26. Id. at para. 5, exh. D. Initial, unverified responses were served on 1/14/26, and plaintiffs' counsel informed defense counsel verifications would follow. Id. at paras. 3-4, exhs. B-C. Plaintiffs argue no sanctions are warranted, as responses were served, and verification were be forthcoming. Plaintiffs argue defendant failed to meet-and-confer prior to filing this motion. Defendant argues the two-week delay and proximity to the then-trial date necessitated filing the motion, and sanctions are warranted. Decl. Miles, para.

8. Defendant does not address purported meet-and-confer deficiencies. Defense counsel's one email addressed the the status of the verifications but did not identify the verification issue concerning the October 2024 responses and did not explain the relief it intended to seek. Id. at para.

9. Defendant did not meaningfully engage in efforts to resolve the dispute before filing its motion. Code Civ. Proc. Sec.2016.040 requires a party moving to compel discovery to make a reasonable good faith attempts to resolve the issue informally before seeking court intervention. Under the circumstances, the court find defendant's one email is insufficient to justify an award of sanctions, as it appears additional meet-and-confer efforts could have avoided this motion. DENIED. Case Number: 23VECV03196 Hearing Date: September 11, 2026 Dept: B Tentative Ruling Rose v. Loren, Case no. 23VECV03196 Hearing date September 11, 2026