Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC07749, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07749    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, February 08, 2024

Case Name:                             TIMOTHY D. REUBEN, INC., a California professional corporation, d/b/a REUBEN RAUCHER & BLUM v. MASOUD JAMALI ASHTIANI, an individual; SHIDOKHT HAKIMZADEH, an individual; BMB ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 1- 25, inclusive

Case No.:                                22STLC07749

Motion:                                   Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted  

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Timothy D. Reuben, Inc. a California professional corporation, d/b/a Reuben Raucher & Blum

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Timothy D. Reuben, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted is GRANTED.

SERVICE: 

[   ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                     OK

[   ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[   ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of January 26, 2024                  [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of February 01, 2024                [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff Timothy D. Reuben, Inc. A California professional corporation, d/b/a Reuben Raucher & Blum (“Plaintiff”) filed five causes of action against Defendants Masoud Jamali Ashtiani (“Ashtiani”), Shidokht Hakimzadeh (“Hakimzadeh”), and BMB Entertainment, LLC (“BMB”) (collectively “Defendants”) for 1) breach of contract, 2) unjust enrichment, 3) indebitatus assumpsit 4) open book account, and 5) quantum meruit.

Defendants Hakimzadeh and Ashtiani each filed their Answer respectively on December 21, 2023.

On January 09, 2022, Plaintiff moved for default to be entered against Defendant BMB. The Clerk entered default against Defendant BMB the same day.

On January 09, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted against Defendant Ashtiani. No opposition has been filed. 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff requests the Court order that the genuineness of the documents and the truths of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set One, (“RFA’s”) be deemed admitted. Plaintiff argues that the motion is necessary as Defendant Ashtiani failed to serve responses under section 2033.280. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)  “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).)  A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]). There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)  

II.        Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order that the genuineness of the documents and the truth of the matters specified in the Request for Admissions (Set One) be deemed admitted. Plaintiff argues that the motion is necessary as Defendant Ashtiani has failed to serve verified responses under section 2033.280.

Plaintiff provides the Court with a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that his office served Ashtiani with Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, (RFAs) by mail on November 29, 2023. (Stephen L. Raucher Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Counsel swears that to date, Defendant Ashtiani has not served any responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs. (Id. ¶ 3.)

 Here, the Court finds that more than 30 days have lapsed since Ashtiani was served with Plaintiff’s RFAs because Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration indicates that no verified responses were received by or before January 3, 2024. Thus, since Defendant Ashtiani has not provided Plaintiff’s with verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs within 35 days of its service, Plaintiff is entitled to pursue the motion. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Defendant pursuant to CCP, § 2033.280.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs as admitted.  

III.       Conclusion

            Plaintiff Timothy D. Reuben, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. THE COURT DEEMS THE MATTERS WITHIN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AS TRUE AGAINST DEFENDANT ASHTIANI.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.