Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00774, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00774    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

MARIAM DOLMAJIAN,

 

                               Plaintiff,

 

 

                      v.

 

 

HILTON HOTEL PASADENA, AXA INVESTMENT MANAGERS US, INC., AMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LLC, and DOES 1 to 100,

 

                           Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.:  23AHCV00774

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FORM INTERROGATORIES

 

 

Date:   November 27, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

I.        INTRODUCTION

          In this personal injury action, Plaintiff Mariam Dolmajian (Dolmajian) alleges that on April 11, 2021, while she was at a Hilton Hotel, she slipped and fell. Dolmajian alleges that this occurred at Defendant Hilton Hotel Pasadena, owned by Defendant Aimbridge Hospitality LLC. She alleges she suffered injuries because of Defendants’ negligence.

          Before the Court are two discovery motions by Aimbridge Hospitality LLC (Aimbridge) filed October 13, 2023, seeking orders compelling Dolmajian to provide responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. The motions are granted.

 

          II.      LEGAL STANDARD

          Code Civ. Proc. Section 2030.290 provides that when a party to whom interrogatories has been propounded fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the interrogatories; it further provides that the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatory. Subdivision (c) provides for monetary sanctions in connection with such motion. (CCP § 2030.290.)

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).) Misuse of the discovery process includes: “(d) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Reasonable expenses under CCP section 2023.030(a) include the time spent in researching and preparing the motion, as well as court time and travel time spent in connection with the motion. (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.)

 

          III.     DISCUSSION

          A. Motions

          On July 7, 2023, Aimbridge served Dolmajian with Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One via electronic service. Responses were due August 9, 2023. When no responses were received, defense counsel inquired as to the status of responses several times. (Alvarez Declaration, ¶ 4.) Counsel for Aimbridge reached out via email again on September 5, 2023 and unilaterally extended the deadline to September 8, 2023. (Alvarez Decl., ¶ 5, referencing Exh. B.) On September 18, counsel again extended the deadline, after corresponding with Dolmajian’s counsel, to September 22, 2023. (Alvarez Decl., ¶ 6, referencing Exh. C.) No responses were received. On September 28, 2023, counsel for Aimbridge again extended the deadline and granted another extension to October 8, 2023. (Alvarez Decl., ¶ 7, referencing Exh. D.) As of the date this motion was filed, Dolmajian has not provided responses.

          Based on this record, Aimbridge is entitled to the relief requested: an order compelling Dolmajian to provide code compliant responses without objections.

          B. Sanctions

          Aimbridge requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,260.00 for each of the two motions. Aimbridge’s counsel, Twiggy Alvarez, declares that she spent 1.5 hours preparing each motion, anticipates 1 hour to be spent responding to opposition and preparing a reply brief and .5 hours to spent at the hearing on each motion and paid $60.00 for the filing fee for each motion. (Alvarez Decl. ¶ 10.) Her hourly rate is $400. (Id.)

          The Court finds that 4 hours (1.5 hours per motion for motion preparation and .5 hour per motion for appearance at the hearing) at the hourly rate of $400 is reasonable. The Court finds that the hourly rate of $400 is reasonable. The Court declines to award time spent on a reply, as the motions are unopposed.

          Accordingly, the Court issues monetary sanctions of $1,720 total against Plaintiff Mariam Dolmajian (2 x $860).

 

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV.     ORDER

          Dolmajian is ordered to provide code compliant, verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 10 days of notice of this ruling.

Dolmajian is further ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,720.00 within 30 days of notice of this order.

Aimbridge is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

 

 

         

Dated: ____________                            ___________________________________

                                                                      MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                  JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT