DLI Properties v. O'rrell CA2/8

Filed 4/2/21 DLI Properties v. O’rrell CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

DLI PROPERTIES, LLC, B303821

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 17B01457, v. EC066736 & BV032921)

LISA O’RRELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ralph C. Hofer, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Law Offices of Ronald H. Freshman and Ronald H. Freshman for Defendant and Appellant.

Nussbaum APC and Lane M. Nussbaum for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Lisa O’rrell appeals a discovery order and a summary judgment order. The discovery order granted a motion by DLI Properties, LLC to have its requests for admission deemed admitted against O’rrell. Based on these deemed admissions, the trial court granted DLI’s summary judgment motion and entered judgment against O’rrell. The discovery order is invalid, however, which condemns the summary judgment order built entirely on the bad discovery order. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. I O’rrell bought a property in Studio City, California. DLI purchased it at the trustee’s sale when O’rrell defaulted on her loan payments. O’rrell and her daughter did not leave after DLI served them with a three-day notice to quit. DLI then filed an unlawful detainer action against them. DLI served discovery on O’rrell, including requests for admission. O’rrell timely served her responses by mail on the due date: May 1, 2017. On May 3, 2017, without waiting to see whether O’rrell had timely served responses, DLI filed and served a motion to deem the requests for admission admitted, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, on the grounds DLI had not received responses from O’rrell. On May 4 or 5, DLI received O’rrell’s responses by mail. In a letter dated May 5, 2017, DLI acknowledged receipt of O’rrell’s responses and threatened to file a motion to compel further responses if O’rrell did not supplement them. In short, DLI jumped the gun. It filed a discovery motion claiming discovery abuse before knowing whether there was any basis for the motion. After DLI filed its premature motion, DLI