Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV18995, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV18995 Hearing Date: March 1, 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.  | 
  
   ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )  | 
  
        CASE NO.: 19STCV18995 
 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:  
 (1)  PLAINTIFF’S
  MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT NARINE PETERSSIAN’S VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT
  OBJECTIONS FOR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR COSTS AND
  MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,410 
 (2)  PLAINTIFF’S
  MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT NARINE PETERSSIAN’S VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT
  OBJECTIONS, FOR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR
  COSTS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ATTORNEYS FOR THE SUM OF
  $1,410 
 Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. March 1, 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 compel defendant Narine
Peterssian’s (“Peterssian”)
verified responses to 1) Special Interrogatories, Set One and (2) Request for Production of
Documents, Set One.
No oppositions have been filed.
Plaintiff filed
supplemental declarations in support of the instant motions on January 17,
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 Peterssian on September 2,
2021.  (Supp. Aghabegian Decl. to Mot. to
Compel Peterssian’s Verified Responses to Request for Production (“Supp.
Decl.-Peterssian RPD”), ¶ 3; Supp. Aghabegian Decl. to Mot. to Compel
Peterssian’s Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One
(“Suppl. Decl.-Peterssian SPROG”), ¶ 3.)  Responses were due by October 5, 2021.  (Suppl. Decl.-Peterssian RPD, ¶ 3; Suppl. Decl.-Peterssian SPROG, ¶ 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.-Peterssian RPD, ¶¶ 4-12; Suppl. Decl.-Peterssian SPROG, ¶¶ 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 Peterssian failed to serve
responses, the court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order directing
Peterssian to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Peterssian.
Monetary Sanctions
Plaintiff
requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,410.00 for each motion filed
for the sum total of $2,820.00. 
Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.  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 Narine
Peterssian is ordered to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, and
Request for Production of Documents, Set One, within 30 days of service of this
order.
The Court orders
Defendant Narine Peterssian to pay $1,470.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff
within 30 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 1st day of March 2023
| 
      | 
  
   | 
 
| 
   | 
  
   Hon. Kerry Bensinger  Judge of the
  Superior Court  |