Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV47076, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47076    Hearing Date: May 17, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

LEORA SEDAGHATI, ET AL., 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

LOVI'S DELICATESSEN INC., ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV47076 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

May 17, 2024 

 

I. MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

A. Background  

Defendant Lovi's Delicatessen Inc. ("Defendant”) propounded set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production of documents (“RPDs”), and requests for admissions (“RFAs”), on plaintiffs Leora Sedaghati, Ryan Hanassab, and Adrian Sedaghati (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) on December 5, 2023. After granting two extensions, Defendant avers it has not received any responses to date. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling the Plaintiffs to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration, declaring that some responses have been served, and that his office is working on completing all pending discovery. Plaintiffs’ counsel provides copies of Plaintiffs’ responses to request for admissions, and Leora Sedaghati’s verified responses to request for production of documents.  

As of May 9, 2024, no reply has been received.  

 

B. Discussion 

Because Plaintiffs’ responses to RFAs and Leora Sedaghati’s responses RPDs have been served prior to the hearing, the issue as to these items are now moot. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.) However, Plaintiffs have not affirmatively demonstrated that the remaining outstanding discovery that are the subject of Defendant’s motions have been completed since.  

 

C. Conclusion & Order 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs are GRANTED as follows:  

(1) Ryan Hanassab, and Adrian Sedaghati are ordered to serve verified responses to Lovi's Delicatessen Inc.’s form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).). 

(2) Leora Sedaghati is ordered to serve verified responses to Lovi's Delicatessen Inc.’s form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP § 2030.290(a),(b).) 

 

II. SANCTIONS 

Defendant requests $525 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs for each motion. Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response, unless a court makes certain findings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)  

Defendant is awarded 1 hour for the motion to compel interrogatories and RPDs, and 1 hour to appear at the hearing (awarded only once), at the requested rate of $175 per hour, for a total $700 as attorney’s fees. 

Sanctions are imposed against the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ attorney of record, jointly and severally. Plaintiffs and/or their counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to defendant Lovi's Delicatessen Inc., by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $700, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 16th day of May 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court