Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV18995, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV18995    Hearing Date: February 9, 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 (1) compel defendant Jadel Oneida Tejeda’s (“Tejeda”) verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; (2) compel Tejeda’s verified responses to Requests for Production, Set One; (3) Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set One, propounded on defendant Gor Karapetian (“Gor”); (4) compel Gor’s verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; and (5) compel Gor’s verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.  No oppositions have been filed.

Plaintiff filed supplemental declarations in support of the instant motions on January 17 and 19, 2023.

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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel served the discovery requests on Defendant Tejeda and Defendant Gor on September 2, 2021.  (Supp. Aghabegian Decl. to Mot. to Compel Tejeda’s Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories (“Supp. Decl.- Tejeda SROG”), ¶ 3; Supp. Aghabegian Decl. to Mot. to Compel Tejeda’s Verified Responses to Request for Production (“Supp. Decl.-Tejeda RPD”), ¶ 3; Supp. Aghabegeian Decl. to Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission against Gor (“Suppl. Decl.-Gor RFA”), ¶ 3; Supp. Aghabegeian Decl. to Motion to Compel Gor’s Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories (“Suppl. Decl.-Gor SROG”), ¶ 3); Supp. Aghabegeian Decl. to Motion to Compel Gor’s Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories (“Suppl. Decl.- Gor FROG”), ¶ 3.)  Responses were due by October 5, 2021. (Suppl. Decl.-Tejeda SROG, ¶ 3; Suppl. Decl.-Tejeda RPD, ¶ 3; Suppl. Decl.-Gor RFA, ¶ 3; Suppl. Decl.-Gor SROG, ¶ 3; Suppl. Decl.-Gor FROG, ¶ 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.-Tejeda SROG, ¶¶ 4-12; Suppl. Decl.-Tejeda RFD, ¶¶ 4-12; Suppl. Decl.-Gor RFA ¶¶ 4-12; Suppl. Decl.-Gor SROG, ¶¶ 4-12; Suppl. Decl.-Gor FROG, ¶¶ 4-12.) Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for admission are waived. 

As Plaintiff properly served the discovery requests and Defendants Tejeda and Gor failed to serve responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order directing Tejeda and Gor to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Tejeda and Gor.  In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted against Defendant Gor. 

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,410.00 for each motion filed for the sum total of $7,050.  Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.  Sanctions are imposed against Defendant Tejeda in a total reduced amount of $1,470 for 3 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $450.00 plus $120.00 in filing fees. 

Sanctions are imposed against Defendant Karapetian in a total reduced amount of $2,205.00 for 4.5 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $450.00 plus $180.00 in filing fees.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motions are granted. 

Defendant Jadel Oneida Tejeda is ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One and Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days of this order.

Defendant Gor Karapetian is ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days of this order.  Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Defendant Gor Karapetian. 

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. 

The court orders Defendant Gor Karapetian to $2,205 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 9th day of February 2023