Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV18995, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV18995    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

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

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set One, propounded on defendant Jadel Oneida Tejeda (“Defendant”).  No opposition has been filed.

On January 17, 2023, the Court continued Plaintiff’s motion to deem the request for admissions admitted for Plaintiff’s failure to attach any of the exhibits references in Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration. Plaintiff filed supplemental declarations in support of the instant motions on the same day.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories and inspection demands were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (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 truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.280, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a), 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) 

¿     If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it 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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿¿ In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel served Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant Tejeda on September 2, 2021. (Supplemental Aghabegian Decl. to Mot. to Compel Verified Responses (“Suppl. Decl.-FR”), ¶ 3; Supplemental Aghabegeian Decl. to Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (“Suppl. Decl.-RFA”), ¶ 3.) Responses were due by October 5, 2021. (Supplemental Aghabegian Decl. to Mot. to Compel Verified Responses (“Suppl. Decl.-FR”), ¶ 3; Supplemental Aghabegeian Decl. to Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (“Suppl. Decl.-RFA”), ¶ 3.) However, despite granting numerous extensions to Defendant to serve responses over a year ago, as of the date of the filing of this motion, Defendant has yet to respond to discovery. (Suppl. Decl.-FR ¶¶ 4-12; Suppl. Decl.-RFA ¶¶ 4-12.) Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for admission are waived. 

As Plaintiff properly served the discovery requests and Defendant failed to serve responses, the court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the at-issue Requests for Admission admitted against Defendant. 

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,410.00 for the Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and $1,410.00 for the Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission.  Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Defendant in the total reduced amount of $1,470.00 for 3 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $450.00 and $120.00 in filing fees, to be paid within 30 days of being served with proof that the additional filing fee has been paid.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions are granted.  Defendant Jadel Oneida Tejeda is ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 30 days of this order. Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Defendant Jadel Oneida Tejeda. 

The court orders Defendant Jadel Oneida Tejeda to pay $1,470 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff within 60 days of the date of notice of this order. 

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 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 8th day of February 2023