Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00148 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00148, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00148 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: C

THE BICYCLE CASINO v. MOMENI

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00148

HEARING: 03/02/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Request for Production (set one) is GRANTED.

II. Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.

III. Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED.

IV. Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (set one) Admitted as to Defendant is GRANTED.

V. Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions – Genuineness of Documents (set one) Admitted as to Defendant is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Oppositions filed as of February 28, 2023.

Motions to Compel Request for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Plaintiff has shown that Special Interrogatories (set one), Form Interrogatories (set one), and Request for Production of Documents (set one) were properly served onto Plaintiff on May 10, 2022. The deadlines to respond have expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. Plaintiff filed these motions on October 20, 2022— over four months after service of the discovery. As of February 28, 2023, no Oppositions have been filed to the subject Motions.

Therefore, the Motions to Compel are GRANTED, and Defendant FARHAD MOMENI is ORDERED to provide verified responses and documents, without objection by no later than 30 days from date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by stipulation of the parties. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

Sanctions may be awarded against a party who fails to oppose a motion to compel. (C.R.C 3.1348(a).). Defendant failed to submit any Opposition to the instant Motions. As such, there is nothing to show that he acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Reasonable sanctions are awarded as follows: Defendant FARHAD MOMENI is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff and its counsel of record reasonable sanctions in the total amount of $885.00. ($275/hr. x 3 hrs.) ($180 costs) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended per agreement of the parties.

Motions to Deem Admitted

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests…. The Court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP §2033.280.) No prior attempt to resolve the matter informally is required.

Here, RFAs were propounded by the Moving Party on May 10, 2022. To the Court’s knowledge, Defendant has failed to respond as of October 20, 2022 (the date these Motions were filed). Therefore, the unopposed Motions are GRANTED.

Sanctions are mandatory pursuant to the terms of CCP §2033.280(c). Reasonable sanctions are awarded as follows: Defendant FARHAD MOMENI is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff and its counsel of record reasonable sanctions in the total amount of $670.00. ($275/hr. x 2 hrs.) ($120 costs) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended per agreement of the parties.