Garcia v. Loma Gardens CA2/2

Filed 3/18/13 Garcia v. Loma Gardens CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

MARIA GARCIA et al., B239249

Plaintiffs, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC438704) v.

LOMA GARDENS, INC., et al.,

Defendants;

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE;

Intervener and Respondent;

R. PAUL KATRINAK et al.,

Objectors and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William F. Highberger, Judge. Affirmed. R. Paul Katrinak, Basta, Inc., for Objectors and Appellants. Mendes & Mount, Dean B. Herman, Hee Young Lee, Stuart L. Brody for Intervener and Respondent. No appearance for Plaintiffs or Defendants. ___________________________________________________

The trial court imposed sanctions against two attorneys who misused the discovery process. The attorneys asserted frivolous objections to interrogatories, then failed to serve adequate answers even after the court informed them that their objections were unmeritorious. Because the propounding party was obliged to file a motion to compel— and the two attorneys unsuccessfully opposed the motion—the trial court did not abuse its discretion by assessing monetary sanctions pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.010 et seq.)1 FACTS Daniel Bramzon and R. Paul Katrinak (collectively, the Attorneys) practice under the name “BASTA, Inc.,” an organization that advocates for tenants‟ rights. They represent plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in May 2010. Plaintiffs, who rent units in an apartment house owned by defendants, allege that the building is unfit for habitation. Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) is an intervener in the lawsuit. In September 2011, Farmers propounded special interrogatories consisting of 10 questions relating to plaintiffs‟ damages. The questions were simple.2 Plaintiffs gave one response to all of the questions, which consisted only of objections.3