Unknown v. Unknown

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. I) August 25, 2026 DEPARTMENT I LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

to obtain a copy of the court's tentative ruling. Case Number: 25SMCV01811 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: I The court has before it four motions to compel. The underlying suit is brought by two plaintiffs. They claim that defendants--the landlords--acted improperly including by wrongfully evicting them.

Defendants served discovery on February 11, 2025. Plaintiffs did not respond. Defendants gave plaintiffs additional time, although not as long as plaintiffs wanted. When that extension expired, there still were no responses. Plaintiffs asked for 45 days more, but defendants agreed to only two weeks. Even then, there were no responses. Defendants filed these motions on March 25, 2026. Plaintiffs' opposition was essentially a request for a 30 day stay and a continuance of the hearing. No substantive opposition was filed.

On April 23, 2026, the court held a hearing on the motions. The court continued the motions and set an IDC, noting that the case "screams out" for discovery management. Plaintiffs, who brought the suit, claimed that they were worried about broadsides of discovery and not enough time to respond. Defendants stated that they were open to reasonable extensions, but only reasonable extensions. The court noted that plaintiffs' earlier request for a 90 day extension was a lot, but that perhaps defendants ought to have granted it if there was no pressing need for earlier responses in return for a promise that there would in fact be substantive responses at the end of that time. There were also issues relating to potential depositions, but they were not discussed at that time. In any event, the court set the IDC.

Defendants filed an IDC statement, but it was unilateral because plaintiffs had not provided defendants with their part of the submission. In defendants' statement, they proposed a case management schedule with dates for written discovery and depositions. The IDC was set for May 22, 2026, but it did not go forward because plaintiffs had not filed any IDC statement nor responded to defendants' statement. Because the IDC failed, the court's prior order--holding the discovery in abeyance--needed to be superseded by a new order. Accordingly, the motions were continued to July 2, 2026. Plaintiffs filed no substantive opposition to the motions to compel, but they did apply, ex parte to continue the hearings. The court granted plaintiffs' request to continue the hearings, and they were continued to today.

On August 13, 2026, defendants filed a notice of non-receipt of any opposition to their motions. The discovery has been outstanding now for eight months. That is more than enough time for plaintiffs to have responded or at least filed an opposition. The court has reviewed the discovery, and the court sees no reason why plaintiffs have not responded to it. Therefore, the motions are GRANTED. Plaintiffs have 15 days to provide verified responses to the outstanding written discovery without objection. Documents are to be provided at the same time.

The court notes that there was no sanction request in the notice of motion, which the court views as an act of goodwill by the defense. Plaintiffs are advised again: they are entitled to litigate and sue the defendants. What they are not entitled to do is be plaintiffs but refuse to participate in the litigation process. They are strongly urged to provide the discovery responses. The court sees no reason why, in this lengthy period, they have not done so. The court also warns plaintiffs that the failure to comply could lead to a renewed motion, but this time with the possibility of evidentiary, issue, or even terminating sanctions.

Case Number: 25SMUD02217 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: I The matter is here on dueling motions by the parties. Plaintiff wants to take action because the housing subsidy was not reinstated earlier, but defendant states that if there is no reinstatement, defendant will not need to start paying until 8/22. Defendant's recollection is not quite consistent with the settlement's language.

The settlement requires that defendant's subsidy is to be reinstated by August 6 (changed from August 1), and money applied no later than August 22 (changed from August 15). That means that the agreement with the VA is to be in place by August 6, and payments received and applied by August 22. The dates were changed at defendant's request to give defendant more time, but those changes were as set forth above.

Plaintiff's theory is that the subsidy was not in fact reinstated in time, and therefore plaintiff is entitled to possession--not because of misconduct by defendant, but because the subsidy is not in place and retroactively applied. Defendant states, however, that the parties all met with the VA and that the VA has agreed to restore the subsidy effective September 2. Defendant claims he relied on that, and that he is fully prepared to ensure that plaintiff is fully paid for all rent.

The court will inquire. If in fact there is an agreement with the VA to restore the subsidy but it is not effective until September 2, that is a technical breach because plaintiff is right that the agreement needed to be in place by August 6. But there remain two questions. The first is whether plaintiff led defendant and the VA to believe that a September 2 date would be sufficient. If so, that conduct might be sufficient to waive the August 6 deadline. Second, if the subsidy is really going to be reinstated by September 2, is that a material breach? The court is not saying no, but it is saying that it is unsure.

Right now, the court is in the middle of a jury trial. The court will not be able to hold a significant hearing on this today. The court will discuss a continuation date to allow the parties to respond to this