Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 24NNCV03388, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV03388, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV03388 Hearing Date: May 30, 2025 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 05/30/2025 – 8:30am
Case No. 24NNCV03388
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: GAYANE GAVUTYAN v. VDA PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC, et al.

2 TENTATIVE RULINGS – COMPEL RESPONSES

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Gayane Gavutyan, filed the instant action on 8/7/2024.

Plaintiff’s Complaint named the Defendants as: (1) VDA Property Company, LLC., (2) The Kroger Co., and (3) Does 1-50, inclusive.

The two causes of action listed in the Complaint are: (1) General Negligence and (2) Premises Liability.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that while visiting the Ralphs grocery store, owned, operated, maintained, managed, supervised, and controlled by Defendants, VDA Property Company, LLC; The Kroger Co.; and Does 1-50, Plaintiff exited the store and while walking in the parking lot, she slipped and fell on a slippery wet substance. (See Compl. p. 4.)

On 9/26/2025, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Complaint naming Doe 1 as Racquet Centre of Universal City, LLC.

On 9/30/2025, Defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (erroneously sued as “The Kroger Co.”), filed an Answer.

On 10/7/2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Complaint naming Doe 2 as Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs.

On 11/5/2024, Defendant, Racquet Centre of Universal City LLC., filed an Answer.

Plaintiff has two motions to compel responses on calendar for 5/30/2025.

MOTION 1 (Res ID 1554 ) - RELIEF REQUESTED¿

“Plaintiff GAYANE GAVUTYAN moves for an order compelling Defendant RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DBA RALPHS to serve verified responses, free of any objection, to his Request for special interrogatories, Set One, within 10 days of the hearing of the instant motion. Plaintiff also moves this Court to order Defendant RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DBA RALPHS and/or its counsel of record, STONE | DEAN, LLP, to jointly and severally pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,580.00 within 10 days of the hearing of the instant motion.

The motion will be made on the grounds that Defendant RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DBA RALPHS has not provided verified responses to the Plaintiff’s Request for special interrogatories (Set One). The motion will be based on this notice of motion, the Declaration of Haik Beloryan, the memorandum of points and authorities set forth below, on the records and file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.”

(Pl. Mot. p. 2.)

Procedural – Motion 1

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Gayane Gavutyan (Plaintiff or Gavutyan)

Responding Party: Defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (erroneously sued as The Kroger Co.) (Defendant or Ralphs)

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: Notice of Non-Opposition

Reply: No reply submitted

16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300(c)): Yes/No – A proof of service was submitted with the notice/motion; however, there is no proof of service for the Proposed Order.

Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Yes/No – Plaintiff’s counsel allegedly served the notice/motion via electronic mail. Plaintiff’s counsel did not serve the email address listed on eCourt for Defendant’s counsel; Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant’s counsel at emails not listed on eCourt. However, Defendant submitted a notice of non-opposition. Therefore, it appears that Defendant received this motion because Defendant submitted the notice of non-opposition.

MOTION 2 (Res ID 3317 ) – RELIEF REQUESTED

“Plaintiff GAYANE GAVUTYAN moves for an order compelling Defendant RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DBA RALPHS to serve verified responses, free of any objection, to his Request for production of documents, Set One, within 10 days of the hearing of the instant motion. Plaintiff also moves this Court to order Defendant RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DBA RALPHS and/or its counsel of record, STONE | DEAN LLP, to jointly and severally pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,580.00 within 10 days of the hearing of the instant motion.

The motion will be made on the grounds that Defendant RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DBA RALPHS has provided unverified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for production of documents (Set One). The motion will be based on this notice of motion, the Declaration of Haik Beloryan, the memorandum of points and authorities set forth below, on the records and file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.”

(Pl. Mot. p. 2.)

Procedural – Motion 2

Moving Party: Plaintiff, Gayane Gavutyan

Responding Party: Defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (erroneously sued as The Kroger Co.) (Defendant or Ralphs)

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: Notice of Non-Opposition

Reply: No reply submitted

16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b)): Ok

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300(c)): Yes/No – A proof of service was submitted with the notice/motion; however, there is no proof of service for the Proposed Order.

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INTERROGATORIES

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (CCP § 2030.260(a).)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP § 2030.290(b).)

Further, if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, “The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

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).)

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).)

ANALYSIS BOTH MOTIONS

Plaintiff served her Request for Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROGs), and Request for Production of Documents, Set One (RFPs), on Defendant, Ralphs, on October 30, 2024. (Beloryan Decl. ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff argues that responses for these requests were due by December 2, 2024.

On February 4, 2025, Defendant served Plaintiff with unverified responses to the SROGs and RFPs at issue. (Beloryan Decl. ¶ 5.)

On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel’s assistant left a message for Defendant’s counsel about the missing signed verifications. (Beloryan Decl. ¶ 6.) Further on February 28, 2025, Plaintiff granted an extension to Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

On March 11, 2025, Defendant’s counsel provided signed verifications for RFAs and FROGs, but Defendant’s counsel did not provide verifications for the SROGs and RFPs at issue in these motions. (Beloryan Decl. ¶ 8.)

On March 31, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel’s assistant sent an email about the unverified responses for the SROGs and RFPs and set a deadline to supplement the verified responses for 4/2/2025. (Beloryan Decl. ¶ 10.)

As of the date of Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration for the instant two motions, 4/22/2025, Plaintiff had not received verified responses to the SROGs and RFPs. (Beloryan Decl. ¶ 12.)

With respect to the SROGs and RFPs at issue, Plaintiff seeks responses, without objection, within 10 days of the hearings for these motions.

In Plaintiff’s motions, Plaintiff cites to several cases in which Plaintiff alleges that those cases stand for the proposition that unverified discovery responses are considered tantamount to no responses at all.

Plaintiff argues that since verified responses were not provided for the instant discovery, Plaintiff can compel verified responses, without objection.

In both of Defendant’s notices of non-opposition, Defendant stated that it does not oppose Plaintiff’s motions and that verifications were provided to Defendant on April 30, 2025.

TENTATIVE RULINGS BOTH MOTIONS

Preliminary

The instant two motions pertains to Plaintiff compelling responses from Defendant, Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs.

Plaintiff’s proofs of service for the instant two motions allege service on Defendants: (1) “Ralpha Grocery Company dba Ralphs (erroneously sued as “The Kroger Co.”)”, and (2) Racquet Centre of Universal City LLC (Racquet).

Although Plaintiff’s motions only pertain to compelling responses from Defendant, Ralphs, Plaintiff also lists service of these motions on Defendant, Racquet.

To the Court, the reason for service of these motions as to Defendant Ralphs, is apparent because these motions pertain to compelling responses from Ralphs.

However, Plaintiff also decided to serve these motions on Defendant Racquet (a Defendant that Plaintiff is not seeking responses from). The Court would like Plaintiff to explain why it decided to serve these motions on Defendant Racquet but did not serve these motions to Defendant VDA Property Company, LLC (a Defendant that Plaintiff is also not seeking responses from).

The Court also notes that Plaintiff did not provide proofs of service for the two proposed orders for Plaintiff’s motions.

Substantive

The Court will hear argument.

Although Plaintiff received responses to the instant SROGs and RFPs before Plaintiff filed these motions, Plaintiff seeks responses without objections because the responses did not contain verifications.

Defendant submitted a notice of non-opposition to both of Plaintiff’s motions wherein Defendant stated it did not oppose Plaintiff’s motions. Defendant’s notices of non-opposition stated that verifications were provided on April 30, 2025. [For reference, Plaintiff filed and served the instant two motions on April 22, 2025.]

The Court will hear argument because Defendant’s notices of non-opposition are non-responsive to Plaintiff’s motions. Based on Defendant’s notices of non-opposition, it appears as if Defendant may have not read Plaintiff’s motions because Plaintiff’s motions not only seek verifications, but Plaintiff’s motions seek verified responses, without objection. Defendant’s notices of non-opposition appear to assume that by Defendant providing the verifications after Plaintiff filed the instant two motions, Defendant cured the issues of Plaintiff’s motions. However, Defendant’s notices of non-opposition do not address the fact that Plaintiff seeks verified responses, without objections. Or to phrase it differently, to the Court’s understanding, Plaintiff seeks an entire new set of initial verified responses without objections because Defendant did not provide timely, verified responses.

The Court will also hear argument because ordinarily in the instant scenario, the Court would deny Plaintiff’s motions as moot with respect to compelling responses, but not deny them as moot with respect to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Further, the Court will hear argument because if Plaintiff is seeking to compel further responses, without objection, the more appropriate discovery tool for this would be motions to compel further responses.

Ultimately, the Court will hear argument to clarify what these parties seek, particularly in light of the fact that Defendant’s notices of non-oppositions were entirely non-responsive to the relief requested in Plaintiff’s motions.

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).)

Sanctions – Interrogatories
CCP § 2030.290 states in relevant part:

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 interrogatories, 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 § 2030.290(c).)

Sanctions Ruling
“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).)

Each of Plaintiff’s motions seek sanctions in the amount of $2,580.00 imposed against Defendant, Ralphs, and/or Defendant’s counsel of record.

With respect to each motion, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks sanctions based on the following:

My hourly billing rate is $500.00, and I calculated the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions requested as follows:

a. 2 hours to prepare the instant motion, memorandum of points and authorities, and Declaration of Haik Beloryan, Esq.;

b. Total 1 hour to prepare for the motion hearing, appear at the motion hearing, and prepare and file a notice of ruling on said motion;

c. 2 hour to review and draft a reply to Defendant RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DBA RALPHS’ opposition papers; and

d. $80.00 court filing fee.

(Beloryan Decl. ¶ 13.)

The Court to hear argument about Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions.

As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s notices of non-opposition did not oppose Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions.

However, the Court notes that for each motion, Plaintiff’s counsel requested 2 hours to review and draft a reply to Defendant’s Opposition.

Here, Plaintiff did not submit a reply.

Website by Triangulus