Reghabi v. Gilson CA2/6

Filed 10/2/14 Reghabi v. Gilson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

KAYKHOSRO REGHABI, 2d Civil No. B248378 (Super. Ct. No. 1385773) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

MICHAEL GILSON,

Defendant and Respondent.

Kaykhosro Reghabi appeals from the trial court's order imposing terminating sanctions for discovery violations. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant and three other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against respondent Michael Gilson.1 According to the second amended complaint, respondent leased bedrooms within a residence he owned in Santa Barbara to 12 students, including appellant. It was alleged that the number of tenants exceeded that allowed by law and that respondent failed to repair various defective conditions. The complaint contained causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and unjust enrichment.

1 Of the original four plaintiffs, only Reghabi appeals.

On June 7, 2012, respondent's counsel, Ronald Miyamoto, mailed written discovery requests, consisting of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and a request for production of documents, to appellant's counsel in the trial court, Nadia Yashar. Appellant did not respond. On July 25, 2012, Miyamoto sent letters to Yashar requesting verified responses to the discovery in order to avoid a motion to compel. Yashar told Miyamoto that her firm had not received the discovery requests and agreed to accept them via email as if they had been mailed the same day. Miyamoto emailed the requests to Yashar on July 30, 2012. Appellant again did not respond. On September 12, 2012, Miyamoto sent another letter to Yashar, this time asking for the discovery responses by September 21, 2012. Appellant's counsel on appeal, Ross Reghabi, informed Miyamoto that he was preparing for a trial but would provide the requested responses by September 27, 2012. He did not. Respondent moved to compel the responses. On November 7, 2012, the day before the hearing on the motion to compel, Reghabi called Miyamoto.2 He said that the discovery responses were ready to be served and promised to mail them the next day. He also inquired about a potential settlement. The next day, the trial court granted the motions to compel and ordered appellant to provide the discovery, without objection, by November 30, 2012. In addition, the court imposed a $250 sanction on appellant and each of the other plaintiffs. The responses were not provided prior to the court-ordered deadline. In a December 3, 2012, email, Miyamoto asked Reghabi whether he had secured authorization from his clients to attempt a settlement. Reghabi responded that he was having "some difficulty" getting answers from two of his clients but was "working on it and hopefully [would] get answers by [the] end of this week." After receiving no further communication from appellant's counsel, Miyamoto moved for terminating sanctions on December 17, 2012. In a declaration attached to appellant's opposition to the motion, Reghabi asserted that he had not provided the discovery responses by the