Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

GLENDALE I MALL ASSOCIATES, LP.,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GLENDALE FRENCH BOUTIQUE CAFÉ, LLC, et al.

Defendants. Case No.: 21STCV37630

PLAINTIFF GLENDALE I MALL ASSOCIATES, LLC’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AS TO DEFENDANT PUKHALSKAYA

 

Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is GRANTED as to Defendant Pukhalskaya. 

The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests for admission are admitted.

Moving party is to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five days after the date of this order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of lease agreement and guaranty. Plaintiff Glendale I Mall Associates, LP alleges that on September 26, 2017, it entered into a lease agreement with Defendant Glendale French Boutique Café (“GFBC”). (Compl., ¶9.) GFBC breached the lease by failing and refusing to pay rent and other amounts. (Compl., ¶11.) GFBC’s guarantors Stanislav Dudko and Anastasia Pukhalskaya breached the guaranty agreement by failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff amounts due under the guaranty. (Compl., ¶16.) Plaintiff’s damages total $434,674.37. (Compl., ¶17.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Complaint.

On December 14, 2021, Defendants answered.

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to deem the requests for admissions (“RFAs”) propounded on Defendant Pukhalskaya admitted.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves for an order deeming the RFAs propounded on Defendant Pukhalskaya admitted.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), “if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response,” the propounding “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) 

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against a party, attorney, or both whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) 

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that he propounded RFAs on Pukhalskaya on June 28, 2023. (Brown Decl., ¶2.) On August 3, 2023, after receiving no response, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Pukhalskaya inquiring after the late responses. (Id., ¶4.) As of the date of the filing of this motion, Pukhalskaya has not responded to Plaintiff’s RFAs. (Id., ¶5.) Pukhalskaya’s address on Plaintiff’s proof of service on the RFAs, meet and confer letters, and this motion match the address on her former counsel’s form MC-053 Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.

Because Pukhalskaya failed to provide any response to Plaintiff’s RFAs, the request is granted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s motion are admitted. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions.

DATED: October 5, 2023