Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV18995, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV18995 Hearing Date: February 10, 2023 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT
|
EDIK
MINASSIAN, Plaintiff, vs.
JADEL
ONEIDA TEJEDA, et al.,
Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE:
(1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT GOR KARAPETIAN’S
VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS FOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR COSTS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,410
(2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED
IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE) ADMITTED AND CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED AS
AGAINST DEFENDANT NARINE PETERSSIAN; REQUEST FOR COSTS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ATTORNEYS FOR THE SUM OF $1,410 (3) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT NARINE PETERSSIAN’S
VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, FOR FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND
COSTS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR $1,410
Dept.
27 1:30
p.m. February
10, 2023 |
I.
INTRODUCTION
On May 31, 2019, plaintiff Edik
Minassian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jadel Oneida
Tejeda, Gor Karapetian, Ara Karapetian, and Narine Peterssian 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 Gor Karapetian’s (“Gor”) verified responses
to Requests for Production, Set One; (2) Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in
Requests for Admission, Set One, propounded on defendant Narine Peterssian (“Peterssian”);
and (3) compel Peterssian’s verified responses to Form 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 Defendants Gor and Peterssian on September
2, 2021. (Supp. Aghabegian Decl. to Mot.
to Compel Gor’s Verified Responses to Request for Production (“Supp. Decl.-Gor
RPD”), ¶ 3; Supp. Aghabegian Decl. to Mot. to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for
Admission against Peterssian (“Suppl. Decl.-Peterssian RFA”), ¶ 3; Supp. Aghabegeian Decl. to Motion to Compel
Peterssian’s Verified Responses to Form
Interrogatories (“Suppl. Decl.- Peterssian FROG”), ¶ 3.) Responses were due by October 5, 2021. (Suppl. Decl.-Gor RPD, ¶ 3; Suppl.
Decl.-Peterssian RFA, ¶ 3; Suppl.
Decl.- Peterssian FROG, ¶ 3.) However, despite granting numerous extensions
to Defendants to serve responses over a year ago, as of the date of the filing
of this motion, Defendants have yet to respond to discovery. (Suppl. Decl.-Gor RPD, ¶¶ 4-12; Suppl.
Decl.-Peterssian RFA, ¶¶ 4-12; Suppl.
Decl.- Peterssian FROG, ¶¶ 4-12.) Therefore,
all objections to the request for production, 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
Gor and Peterssian to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Gor
and Peterssian. In addition, Plaintiff
is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted against Defendant
Peterssian.
Monetary
Sanctions
Plaintiff
requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,410.00 for each motion filed for
the sum total of $4,230.00. Plaintiff’s
requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.
Sanctions are imposed against Defendant Gor in a total reduced amount of
$735.00 for 1.5 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $450.00 and $60.00 in
filing fees. Sanctions are imposed
against Defendant Peterssian in a 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 service of this order.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motions are granted.
Defendant Gor Karapetian is ordered to
provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents,
Set One, within 30 days of service of this order.
Defendant Narine Peterssian is ordered
to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within
30 days of service of this order. Plaintiff’s
Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Defendant Narine Peterssian.
The Court orders Defendant Gor
Karapetian to pay $735.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff within 60 days of
the date of notice of this order.
The Court orders Defendant Narine
Peterssian to pay $1,470.00 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 10th day of February 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon.
Kerry Bensinger Judge of the Superior Court
|