Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

ANTHONY BOUYER,

Plaintiff,

ARASH TABADDOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22BBCV00377

Hearing Date: December 16, 2022

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiff Anthony Bouyer (“Plaintiff”) requires the use of leg braces for mobility stability, a walker or wheelchair for mobility, and hand control devices to drive his motor vehicle. He alleges that on April 30, 2022, he went to The Salsa Bar as a customer, but the restaurant lacked an accessible route for persons with disability.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Bassam Mechammil and Maryann Mechammil, individually and as trustees of The Bassam Mechammil Family Trust Date September 25, 2000, owned the property located at 3791 Cahuenga Blvd. in Studio City where the business is located. Defendant Arash Tabaddor is alleged to own, operate, and control The Salsa Bar business located at the property.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed on November 28, 2022, alleges a single cause of action for Violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“UCRA”), California Civil Code, § 51 et seq.

B. Motion on Calendar

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Arash Tabaddor’s further responses to the Requests for Admissions, set one (“RFA”). He also seeks monetary sanctions in the sum of $1,200.

On December 5, 2022, Tabaddor filed an opposition brief.

On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to compel Tabaddor’s further responses to RFA Nos. 7, 18, and 19.

RFA No. 7 asks Tabaddor to admit that from April 30, 2022 to the present, he had knowledge that conditions existed at the subject property that do not comply with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. In his initial and amended responses, Tabaddor denied the RFA “insofar as there are no barriers existing at the property that relate to Plaintiff’s disability.”

Plaintiff seeks a further response, arguing that Tabaddor’s response is evasive and incomplete and includes an improper qualification. Tabaddor argues that a further response is not merited because there are 270 pages to the 2010 Standards, with each page having 10-20 distinct standards. Thus, Tabaddor argues that Plaintiff’s request essentially asks him to read through each of the standards to decide what violations are at the property. RFA No. 7 generally asks if Tabaddor knew of any condition at the property that did not comply with the ADA Standards from April 30, 2022 to the present. This is a simple admit or deny, though some qualifications may be made whether Tabaddor knew of violations on April 30, 2022 as opposed to the present now that this litigation has commenced. The RFA does not seek an admission or denial as to Plaintiff’s specific disability, nor does it ask whether Tabaddor was aware of every rule in the ADA Standards. As such, a further response should be provided to RFA No. 7.

RFA No. 18 asks Tabaddor to admit that on April 30, 2022 the accessible parking spaces at the subject property had a slope that exceeded ADAAG specifications in violation of section 502.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. In his amended response, Tabaddor objected that the RFA was compound and irrelevant because Plaintiff did not specifically allege that the existing slope at the property caused him difficulty or discomfort related to Plaintiff’s physical limitations. On that basis, Tabaddor denied the RFA.

Plaintiff argues that Tabaddor’s response is evasive and improperly qualifies the denial based on Tabaddor’s opinion of Plaintiff’s disability. In opposition, Tabaddor argues that he is unable to adequately respond because Plaintiff has not alleged the nature of his particular disability and whether he can negotiate a slope/ramp. However, RFA No. 18 generally asks whether the parking spaces at the subject property exceeded the ADAAG specifications in violation of the ADA. This is a fact that can be denied or admitted based on inspection of the premises. As such, the motion is granted as to RFA No. 18.

RFA No. 19 asks Tabaddor to admit that on April 30, 2022, the accessible parking space at the subject property did not provide compliant accessible parking signage in violation of section 502.6 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Tabaddor objected that the request was compound and irrelevant as Plaintiff did not specifically allege how the accessible parking sign denied him access to the property.

Plaintiff argues that the RFA seeks relevant information since he alleged in the complaint that he encountered barriers to access the premises and was denied the right to enjoy accessible conditions at the property. Tabaddor argues that Plaintiff was not harmed by an absence of a sign. Tabaddor also argues that there is an accessible parking sign mounted on the adjacent wall on the accessible parking. It appears that Tabaddor is able to respond to this RFA as he has argued in opposition that he has an accessible parking sign adjacent to the parking space. At this time, the Court will not reach the merits of damages or how Plaintiff was injured by the lack of the sign. The motion is granted as to RFA No. 19.

Plaintiff seeks $1,200 in sanctions against Tabaddor and his counsel in the amount of $1,200 (= 3 hours x $400/hour). The Court grants sanctions in the reasonable amount of $1,000 for this motion.

Tabaddor seeks sanctions for filing the opposition. The request is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Bouyer’s motion to compel Defendant Arash Tabaddor’s further responses to the Requests for Admissions, set one Nos. 7, 18, and 19 is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses without objection to the discovery within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendant Arash Tabaddor and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this order.