Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV18995, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV18995    Hearing Date: March 17, 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, Ara Karapetian, and Narine Peterssian (“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 Peterssian’s verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One.  Plaintiff filed supplemental declarations in support of the instant motions on January 17, 2023.

On March 1, this motion was heard.  The Court continued the hearing to allow Peterssian’s counsel to address sanctions; namely, whether sanctions should be imposed against Peterssian and her counsel or Peterssian alone.  As of this date, no supplemental pleadings (declarations) have been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A.   Interrogatories and Demands for Inspection

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).)  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).) 

B.   Sanctions

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.

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).)

III.        DISCUSSION

A.   Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel served the at-issue discovery requests on Peterssian on September 2, 2021.  Responses were due by October 5, 2021.  However, despite granting numerous extensions to Defendants to serve responses over a year ago, as of the date of the filing of this motion, Peterssian has yet to respond to discovery.  (Aghabegian Suppl. Decls., ¶¶ 3-12.) Therefore, all objections to the request for production and special interrogatories 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 Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

B.   Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests imposition of monetary sanctions against Peterssian and her counsel of record in the amount of $1,410.00 for each motion filed for the sum total of $2,820.00.  However, the notices of each motion only specify that Plaintiff seeks imposition of monetary sanctions against Peterssian.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040; Simke, Chodos, Silberfeld & Anteau, Inc. v. Athans (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1290 (“[a] request for a [discovery] sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.”).)  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED as to Peterssian only.  Sanctions are imposed against 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 Request for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 30 days of service of this order. 

The Court orders Defendant Narine Peterssian, to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,470.00 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 17th day of March 2023