Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 21GDCV00182, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV00182 Hearing Date: April 28, 2023 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 04/28/2023 – 10:00am
Case No: 21GDCV00182
Trial Date: 10/30/2023
Case Name: SERJIK ALEHVERDIAN, et al. v. PALM DELUXE PARTNERS LP
4
-TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Relief
Requested:
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order compelling Defendant, Palm Deluxe
Partners, LP to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One,
Nos. 1-4, 8, 11-15, 17, and 18 served on Defendant Palm Deluxe Partners LP on
November 18, 2021. This motion is made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300
on the grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to
serve complete and proper further responses to these interrogatories. Notice is
additionally given that Plaintiff will request that the Court award monetary
sanctions against Defendant PALM DELUXE PARTNERS, LP and counsel, ADLI LAW
GROUP, P.C., and in favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,653.75 pursuant to
Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010 et seq., and Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300.
Moving
Papers: Motion; Robinson Declaration; Supplemental Robinson Declaration;
Separate Statement; Kazandjian Declaration
MOTION
2
Relief
Requested:
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order compelling Defendant Palm Deluxe
Partners, LP to serve further responses to General Form Interrogatories, Set
One, Nos. 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.6 – 16.9, and 50.1
served on Defendant Palm Deluxe Partners LP on November 18, 2021. This motion
is made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300 on the grounds that the
responding party has failed, without justification, to serve complete and
proper further responses to these interrogatories. Notice is additionally given
that Plaintiff will request that the Court award monetary sanctions against
Defendant PALM DELUXE PARTNERS, LP and counsel, ADLI LAW GROUP, P.C., and in
favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $2,028.75 pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§
2023.010 et seq., and Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300.
Moving
Papers: Motion; Robinson Declaration; Supplemental Robinson Declaration;
Separate Statement; Kazandjian Declaration
MOTION
3
Relief
Requested: Plaintiffs
move the Court for an order compelling Defendant ANUPAM PATEL to serve further
responses to all REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, Set One, Nos. 1-30,
served on Defendant ANUPAM PATEL on November 18, 2021. This motion is made
pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, 2030.300, 2030.300(d), 2030.230,
2030.290, and 2030.290(a) on the grounds that the responding party has failed,
without justification, to serve complete responses to these inspection demands.
Notice is additionally given that Plaintiff will request that the Court award
monetary sanctions against Defendant ANUPAM PATEL and counsel, ADLI LAW GROUP,
P.C., and in favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,747.50 pursuant to Civ. Proc.
§ 2023.010 et seq., and Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290.
Moving
and Reply Papers: Motion; Robinson Declaration; Supplemental Robinson
Declaration; Separate Statement; Notice of Non-Opposition; Amended Notice of
Non-Opposition; Kazandjian Declaration
MOTION
4
Relief
Requested: Plaintiffs
move the Court for an order compelling Defendant Palm Deluxe Properties LLC to
serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-4, 8,
11-15, 17, and 18 served on Defendant Palm Deluxe Properties LLC on November
18, 2021. This motion is made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300 on the
grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to serve
complete and proper further responses to these interrogatories.
Notice
is additionally given that Plaintiff will request that the Court award monetary
sanctions against Defendant PALM DELUXE PROPERTIES LLC and counsel, ADLI LAW
GROUP, P.C., and in favor of Plaintiffs in the sum of $1,653.75 pursuant to
Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010 et seq., and Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300.
Moving
and Reply Papers: Motion; Robinson Declaration; Supplemental Robinson
Declaration; Separate Statement; Notice of Non-Opposition; Amended Notice of
Non-Opposition; Kazandjian Declaration
TENTATIVE
RULING
All
four of Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses are DENIED.
Motions
to compel further responses to interrogatories and motions to compel further
responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things require a
separate statement. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(2)-(3).)
The
instant four motions pertain to compelling further responses to either
interrogatories or production of documents. Here, all four separate statements
to each motion have a defective proof of service.
As
to motion 1, the separate statement proof of service does not indicate who was
served and it does not indicate what email address was served the separate
statement. Further, the proof of service was not signed. Additionally, the
proof of service does not indicate what document was served.
As
to motion 2, the separate statement proof of service does not indicate who was
served and it does not indicate what email address was served the separate
statement. Further, the proof of service was not signed.
As
to motion 3, the separate statement proof of service does not indicate who was
served and it does not indicate what email address was served the separate
statement. Further, the proof of service was not signed. Additionally, the
proof of service does not indicate what document was served.
As
to motion 4, the separate statement proof of service does not indicate who was
served and it does not indicate what email address was served the separate
statement. Further, the proof of service was not signed.
“Unless
otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting
papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.”
(CCP §1005(b).)
Further
as to motion 3, the motion itself has a defective proof of service. The proof
of service to the motion does not indicate who was served and it does not
indicate what email address was served.
Further,
as to all four motions, each motion had a declaration of Haig B. Kazandjian.
Each Kazandjian declaration had a defective proof of service that neither
indicated who was served nor what email address was served.
The
Court notes that no Opposition was submitted for any of the four motions.
Each
of Plaintiffs’ sanctions requests for each of the four motions is denied.
The
Court also notes that the Court reexamined the proofs of service for the
separate statements of the two motions that the Court granted on April 7, 2023.
The Court found that those two proofs of service for the separate statements
were also defective. Therefore, the Court VACATES its sanctions orders of April
7, 2023, and the Court VACATES the grant of both of the two motions granted on
April 7, 2023.