Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV18995, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV18995     Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On May 31, 2019, plaintiff Edik Minassian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jadel Oneida Tejeda, Gor Karapetian, and Ara Karapetian (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (1) general negligence, (2) premises liability, and (3) strict liability.

The Complaint alleges the following. On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff exited his house in Glendale, California, and walked toward his vehicle located in the driveway of his house. (Compl., ¶ 1.) As Plaintiff attempted to enter his vehicle, two dogs escaped from the Defendants’ house and attacked Plaintiff, biting his arm, grabbing a mouthful of his jacket, and repeatedly pulled and yanked his body in a rapid and forceful manner. (Compl., ¶ 3.)

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an order deeming admitted the truth specified in his Requests for Admissions (Set One) propounded on defendant Jadel Oneida Tejeda (“Defendant Tejeda”).

As of January 10, 2023, no opposition to the motion has been filed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “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, subd. (c).)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motions unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

III.      DISCUSSION

          Plaintiff moves the Court for an order deeming the truth of those matters specified in his Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted by the responding party and conclusively established against Defendant Tejeda for all purposes in this action. Plaintiff further moves for an order imposing sanctions of $1,410 against the defendant.

          Plaintiff’s counsel attests to the following facts. On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff served his Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant Tejeda, and the responses were due by October 4, 2021. (Motion, declaration of Alan Aghabegian (“Aghabegian Decl.”), ¶ 3.) However, despite granting numerous extensions to Defendant Tejeda to serve his responses over a year ago, as of the date of the filing of the motion (on December 14, 2022), Defendant has yet to respond to discovery. (Aghabegian Decl., ¶¶ 4-12.)

          The Court notes that Plaintiff has attached a Proof of Service, indicating that he served defense counsel (Thomas D. Sands, Esq. of The Sands Law Group, APLC), with the moving papers on December 14, 2022, via electronic mail. (Motion, p. 11 – Proof of Service.) However, as of January 10, 2023, no opposition to the motion has been filed.

          Nevertheless, the Court cannot rule on the motion at this time because Plaintiff failed to attach any of the exhibits (A through G) referenced in his counsel’s declaration. This includes a copy of the requests for admission at issue.

          Accordingly, the Court will continue the hearing for the motion to allow Plaintiff to file the missing exhibits.  

IV.      CONCLUSION

          The motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in requests for admission (set one) admitted and conclusively established is CONTINUED to February 8, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., Dept. 27, Spring Street Courthouse.

Plaintiff Edik Minassian is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration, attaching copies of the missing exhibits cited in his moving papers, including a copy of the Requests for Admissions (Set One) he propounded on defendant Jadel Oneida Tejeda on September 2, 2021.

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

        Dated this 17th day of January 2023