Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV02576, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02576, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV02576 Hearing Date: March 24, 2025 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 3/24/25 TRIAL DATE: 9/15/25

Case #23CHCV02576

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Demand for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 10/28/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sahak Ghoukasian

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Mahyar Louie

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Mahyar Louie to provide further verified responses to, and compliance with, Plaintiff Sahak Ghoukasian’s Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and Other Tangible Things, Set 1, including compliance with the production of actual documents, Nos. s 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 34, 38-41, 43, 44, 49, 50, 52, 59-62 and 65. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant Mahyar Louie in the amount of $2,452.57.

RULING: The motion is denied.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 8/25/23, Plaintiff Sahak Ghoukasian (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Mahyar Louie (Mahyar) and Fran Louie (Fran) (collectively, Defendants). After Defendants answered the complaint, the parties stipulated to allow Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint. On 11/14/23, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Oral Contract, (2) Open Book Account, (3) Account Stated, (4) Money Lent, (5) Intentional Misrepresentation, (6) Conversion, (7) Negligent Misrepresentation, (8) Financial Elder Abuse, (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and (10) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. On 12/18/23, Defendants answered the First Amended Complaint.

On 9/28/23, Plaintiff served Mayhar with Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and Other Tangible Things, Set 1. (Jafarian Decl., Ex.A). On 2/2/24, Mayhar served responses to the discovery. (Id., Ex.B). On 2/27/23, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel regarding Defendant’s deficient discovery responses and requested further responses by 2/16/23. (Id., Ex.C).

Plaintiff claims that on 3/14/24 and 4/30/24, defense counsel granted an extension to 6/30/24 to file a motion to compel further responses. (Jafarian Decl. ¶6). Thereafter, defense counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted. (See 5/1/24 Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel). Plaintiff claims that on 6/30/24, Mayhar, representing himself, granted Plaintiff an extension until 10/31/24 to file a motion to compel further responses. (Jafarian Decl. ¶7).

On 10/28/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant Mahyar Louie to provide further verified responses to, and compliance with, Plaintiff Sahak Ghoukasian’s Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and Other Tangible Things, Set 1, including compliance with the production of actual documents, Nos. s 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 34, 38-41, 43, 44, 49, 50, 52, 59-62 and 65. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant Mahyar Louie in the amount of $2,452.57. No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed.

ANALYSIS

The proof of service attached to the motion indicates that it is for a “NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTION; DECLARATION OF SEPEHR OMRANI; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,” not a motion concerning document demands. (emphasis added) (See Motion, pdf 67). As such, there is no evidence that the subject motion was served on Mahyar and there is no response to the motion to cure the defect in notice.

More importantly, there is no writing confirming the parties purported agreement to extend the deadline to bring the instant motion.

CCP 2031.310(c) provides:

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.”

(emphasis added)

While Plaintiff’s counsel claims that such extensions were granted, no writings have been provided to confirm such as required. (See Jafarian Decl. ¶¶6-7). The 45-day limit is mandatory and “jurisdictional” meaning the Court has not authority to grant a late motion. See Sexton (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1410.

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied.

The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4), Plaintiff’s attorney has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the motion. Counsel is warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance with the rule, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.