Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 23GDCV00329, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00329, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00329 Hearing Date: November 8, 2024 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 11/08/2024 – 8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV00329
Trial Date: 03/16/2026
Case Name: MELINE GALSTYAN, et al. v. AVI GHAZARYAN, et al.

3 TENTATIVE RULINGS – COMPEL RESPONSES

MOTION 1-Res ID 0004

RELIEF REQUESTED¿
“Plaintiffs MELINE GALSTYAN and ANDREY PILIKYAN (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) will move the court for an order compelling Defendant APEX HOME LOANS, LLC (hereinafter, “Defendant”) to serve responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Demand for Production of Documents Set No. One (1), served on Defendant on June 11, 2024. This motion is made pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.010 et seq., on the grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to respond to this proper discovery, and has waived her right to object to these Demands for Production of Documents.

Notice is additionally given that Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order for sanctions against Defendant APEXHOMELOANS, LLC, and their counsel of record, Harry A. Safarian, Esq., and The Safarian Firm, APC, in favor of Plaintiffs, in the sum of $1,350.00 pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 2031.010 et seq.

This motion is based upon this notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration Eugene S. Alkana, Esq., upon the records and files in this action, and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presented prior to or at the time of hearing on the motion.”

(Pl. Mot. p. 1-2.)

PROCEDURAL
Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Meline Galstyan and Andrey Pilikyan

Responding Party: No Opposition by Defendant Apex Home Loans, LLC

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: No Opposition by Defendant Apex Home Loans, LLC

Reply: No reply

Procedural
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INSPECTION DEMANDS
Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response. (CCP §2031.260(a).)

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (CCP §2031.300(b).)

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). (CCP §2031.300(a).) “The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP §2031.300(a)(1)-(2).)

Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4^th 390, 404 citing Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to 8:1489, pp. 8H-29 to hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)

TENTATIVE RULING MOTION 1-Res ID 0004

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs filed this as one motion when it should have been filed as two motions. Both Plaintiffs/Movants, Meline Galstyan and Andrey Pilikyan, are seeking to compel responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. 1, that were served on Defendant Apex on June 11, 2024.

However, Plaintiffs attach the instant discovery, and each Plaintiff, Meline and Andrey, each individually propounded their own discovery request for Demand for Production of Documents, Set No. 1, on Defendant Apex.

“[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu vs. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4^th 1261, 1269.)

Therefore, Plaintiffs are ordered to pay the additional filing fee if they want both of the motions heard.

As to the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion, on June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs served Demands for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant, Apex Home Loans, LLC. (Alkana Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that on July 22, 2024, a letter was sent to Defendant’s counsel requesting responses to the discovery request. (Alkana Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Eugene S. Alkana, stated that as of “this date” [the Court notes that the Alkana Declaration was signed on 10/8/2024], Alkana had not received a response. (Alkana Decl. ¶ 4.)

Here, because Defendant has not provided timely responses, Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted if Plaintiffs pay the additional filing fee. Defendant is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection, within ten days after the hearing on this motion.

Sanctions - Inspection Demands

In relevant part, 2031.300(c) states as follows:

Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

(CCP § 2031.300(c).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).)

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant, Apex Home Loans, LLC, and its counsel of record, Harry A. Safarian and the Safarian Firm, APC, in the amount of $1,350.00.

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests sanctions as follows:

I communicated with Defendant’s counsel in attempts to resolve these issues. I have also been compelled to make the instant motion. In all, I have expended approximately three hours in pursuit of this matter including drafting of this motion. I expect to spend another hour drafting any reply that might be necessitated and appearing at the hearing of this motion. My hourly billing rate in this matter is $450.00/hr. In addition, I have paid a $60.00 filing fee. Therefore, Plaintiffs move the court for an order compelling Defendant APEX HOME LOANS, LLC, and its counsel, Harry A. Safarian, Esq., and The Safarian Firm, APC, be ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,350.00.

(Alkana Decl. ¶ 6.)

The Court will hear argument as to sanctions; the Court notes that no reply was drafted even though the Alkana Declaration allocates time for drafting a reply.

MOTION 2 – Res ID 3038

RELIEF REQUESTED¿
“Plaintiffs MELINE GALSTYAN and ANDREY PILIKYAN (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) will move the court for an order compelling Defendant VACHE AGAZARYAN (hereinafter, “Defendant”) to serve responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Demand for Production of Documents Set No. One (1), served on Defendant on June 11, 2024. This motion is made pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.010 et seq., on the grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to respond to this proper discovery, and has waived her right to object to these Demands for Production of Documents.

Notice is additionally given that Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order for sanctions against Defendant VACHE AGAZARYAN, and his counsel of record, Harry A. Safarian, Esq., and The Safarian Firm, APC, in favor of Plaintiffs, in the sum of $1,350.00 pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 2031.010 et seq., and C.C.P. § 2031.300 et seq.

This motion is based upon this notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration Eugene S. Alkana, Esq., upon the records and files in this action, and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presented prior to or at the time of hearing on the motion.”

(Pl. Mot. p. 1-2.)

PROCEDURAL
Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Meline Galstyan and Andrey Pilikyan

Responding Party: No Opposition by Defendant Vache Agazaryan

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: No Opposition by Defendant Vache Agazaryan

Reply: No reply

Procedural
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INSPECTION DEMANDS
Same as Motion 1.

TENTATIVE RULING MOTION 2-Res ID 3038

“[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu vs. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4^th 1261, 1269.)

Therefore, Plaintiffs are ordered to pay the additional filing fee if they want both of the motions heard.

As to the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion, on June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs served Demands for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant, Vache Agazaryan. (Alkana Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that on July 22, 2024, a letter was sent to Defendant’s counsel requesting responses to the discovery request. (Alkana Decl. ¶ 4.)

Sanctions - Inspection Demands

In relevant part, 2031.300(c) states as follows:

(CCP § 2031.300(c).)

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant, Vache Agazaryan, and his counsel of record, Harry A. Safarian and the Safarian Firm, APC, in the amount of $1,350.00.

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests sanctions as follows:

As the result of Defendant’s refusal to provide answers to Plaintiffs’ proper discovery, which responses are necessary in order to proceed with depositions and effectively prepare for trial, I communicated with Defendant’s counsel in attempts to resolve these issues. I have also been compelled to make the instant motion. In all, I have expended approximately three hours in pursuit of this matter including drafting of this motion. I expect to spend another hour drafting any reply that might be necessitated and appearing at the hearing of this motion. My hourly billing rate in this matter is $450.00/hr. In addition, I have paid a $60.00 filing fee. Therefore, Plaintiffs will move the court for an order compelling Defendant VACHE AGAZARYAN and his counsel, Harry A. Safarian, Esq., and The Safarian Firm, APC, be ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,350.00.

(Alkana Decl. ¶ 6.)

The Court will hear argument as to sanctions; the Court notes that no reply was drafted even though the Alkana Declaration allocates time for drafting a reply.

MOTION 3 – Res ID 3888

RELIEF REQUESTED¿
“Plaintiffs MELINE GALSTYAN and ANDREY PILIKYAN (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) will move the court for an order compelling Defendant ELVIS KESHISHYAN (hereinafter, “Defendant”) to serve responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs’ Demands for Production of Documents Set No. One (1), served on Defendant on June 11, 2024. This motion is made pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.010 et seq., on the grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to respond to this proper discovery, and has waived his right to object to these Demands for Production of Documents.

Notice is additionally given that Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order for sanctions against Defendant ELVIS KESHISHYAN, and his counsel of record, Harry A. Safarian, Esq., and The Safarian Firm, APC, in favor of Plaintiffs, in the sum of $1,350.00 pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 2031.010 et seq., and C.C.P. § 2031.300 et seq.

(Pl. Mot. p. 1-2.)

PROCEDURAL
Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Meline Galstyan and Andrey Pilikyan

Responding Party: No Opposition by Defendant Elvis Keshishyan

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: No Opposition by Defendant Elvis Keshishyan

Reply: No reply

Procedural
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INSPECTION DEMANDS
Same as Motion 1.

TENTATIVE RULING MOTION 3 -Res ID 3888

“[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu vs. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4^th 1261, 1269.)

Therefore, Plaintiffs are ordered to pay the additional filing fee if they want both of the motions heard.

As to the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion, on June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs served Demands for Production of Documents, Set One, on Defendant, Elvis Keshishyan. (Alkana Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that on July 22, 2024, a letter was sent to Defendant’s counsel requesting responses to the discovery request. (Alkana Decl. ¶ 4.)

Sanctions - Inspection Demands

In relevant part, 2031.300(c) states as follows:

(CCP § 2031.300(c).)

Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendant, Elvis Keshishyan, and his counsel of record, Harry A. Safarian and the Safarian Firm, APC, in the amount of $1,350.00.

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests sanctions as follows:

I communicated with Defendant’s counsel in attempts to resolve these issues. I have also been compelled to make the instant motion. In all, I have expended approximately three hours in pursuit of this matter including drafting of this motion. I expect to spend another hour drafting any reply that might be necessitated and appearing at the hearing of this motion. My hourly billing rate in this matter is $450.00/hr. In addition, I have paid a $60.00 filing fee. Therefore, Plaintiffs will move the court for an order compelling Defendant ELVIS KESHISHYAN and his counsel, Harry A. Safarian, Esq., and The Safarian Firm, APC, be ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,350.00.

(Alkana Decl. ¶ 6.)

The Court will hear argument as to sanctions; the Court notes that no reply was drafted even though the Alkana Declaration allocates time for drafting a reply.