Koudriavtseva v. Versailles on the Lake CA4/3

Filed 1/29/15 Koudriavtseva v. Versailles on the Lake CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ALLA KOUDRIAVTSEVA,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G047114

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00362027)

VERSAILLES ON THE LAKE, LTD. et OPINION al.,

Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert D. Monarch, Judge (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) and Luis A. Rodriguez, Judge. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Shustak & Partners and Jennifer S. Hegemier for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, Seymour B. Everett and Tracy M. Lewis for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

THE COURT:* Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine. Defendants contend plaintiff’s willful disobedience of a trial court order precludes her appeal. We agree and dismiss the appeal. BACKROUND Plaintiff Alla Koudriavtseva sued the owner and the property manager of her apartment complex (defendants), seeking compensation for personal injuries and property damage allegedly caused by exposure to mold in her apartment. A five-week jury trial ended in a defense verdict and a judgment against Koudriavtseva for costs amounting to $111,169. On June 28, 2012, plaintiff appealed the judgment, but did not post a bond to stay enforcement. Defendants commenced postjudgment discovery to enforce the judgment, obtaining a February 28, 2013, court order to conduct a debtor’s exam on April 25, 2013. On March 5, 2013, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney, relieving her counsel of record and substituting herself in propia persona. She provided a residential address in San Diego for service. Defendants attempted several times during March 2013 to personally serve plaintiff at the San Diego address with notice of the debtor’s exam, but were never able to serve her. In April 2013, defendants served plaintiff by mail with postjudgment requests for production of documents and special interrogatories. When plaintiff failed to respond to the written discovery, defendants moved to compel, but the trial court denied the motion “upon a procedural technicality.” In November 2013, defendants served plaintiff again by mail with the same written discovery. Plaintiff once more failed to respond to the discovery. Defendants filed a new motion to compel in March 2014, with the hearing set for May 1, 2014. ___________________________________________________ * Before O’Leary, P.J., Bedsworth, J., and Thompson, J.