Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00627, Date: 2022-11-23 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY.Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 22BBCV00627    Hearing Date: November 23, 2022    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff 12436-38 Ventura Bl., LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a single discovery motion.  In the motion, Plaintiff seeks an order deeming Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, admitted, against Defendant Jami Saadat (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff also moves to compel initial responses from Defendant for Form Interrogatories – General (“FROG”), set one; Form Interrogatories – Unlawful Detainer (“FROG-UD”), set one; and Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), set one.  The motion was initially set for December 9, 2022, but was advanced to November 23, 2022 following the October 27, 2022 ex parte hearing to advance the motion.   

On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff served on Defendant the discovery requests.  According to Plaintiff, Defendant represented that he had sent responses via mail on October 18, 2022.  Plaintiff states it received a large stack of unlabeled documents on October 19, 2022 from Defendant, but the documents were mostly black and white printouts of sidewalks and the parking lot behind the subject premises.  Plaintiff states that no actual discovery responses were received, and Defendant did not seek an extension.  (Id., ¶¶7-8.) 

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel responses to the FROG, FROG-UD, and RPD is granted pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 and 2031.300.  While Defendant may have sent Plaintiff’s counsel photographs in an attempt to respond to the RPD requests, it does not appear that Defendant provided code-complaint responses to each set of discovery.  Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order. 

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for an order deeming the RFAs admitted is granted, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280. 

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant.  In the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, counsel states that Plaintiff has incurred $1,460 in bringing this motion (= $350/hour x [3 hours to file the motion, 1 anticipated hour to attend the hearing], plus $60 filing fees).  The Court will allow sanctions, but in a reasonable amount of $560 (= $500 to bring this motion, plus $60 in filing fees). Defendant is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $560 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.