Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: BC617479, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: BC617479    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

ARUTYUN FITILCHYAN; GALINA ARZUMANOVA; HRACHYA GASPARYAN; and MARINE HOVHANISSYAN,

                                            Plaintiffs,

vs.

 

AKOP TOROSYAN, aka JACK TOROSYAN; ROBERT TOROSYAN; and DOES 1 through 100,

                                            Defendants.

___________________________________

AKOP TOROSYAN aka JACK TOROSYAN; ROBERT TOROSYAN; MARINA FERMANYAN; and ELDA MADATYAN,

                                           Plaintiffs,

vs.

 

ARUTYUN FITILCHYAN; HRACHYA GASPARYAN; ARMEN TASHJIAN; ARMEN “ARMENAK” JERMAKYAN; ASHOT MKHITARYAN; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

                                           Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC616980

(Related to Case No. BC617479)

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS BY DEFENDANT ASHOT MKHITARYAN TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED AS TO AKOP TOROSYAN AND ROBERT TOROSYAN AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

 

Date:   February 16, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

I.         INTRODUCTION

            These related cases concern events that transpired on April 16, 2014. For ease of reference, case number BC616980 is referred to as the Fitilchyan Action and case number BC617479 as the Torosyan Action.

            The Fitilchyan Action alleges that Arutyun Fitilchyan (Fitilchyan) was contacted by Akop Torosyan (A. Torosyan) to perform some locksmith services. Fitilchyan alleges he was on his way to deliver brochures and schedule the service when he ran low on fuel. On telephoning A. Torosyan about his tardiness, A. Torosyan began to verbally abuse Fitilchyan, which caused Fitilchyan to decide he was no longer willing to provide the services. Fitilchyan alleges that after this he went to visit his friend Hrachya Gasparyan (Gasparyan) at his body shop. Fitilchyan alleges that while the two were having coffee at the body shop, A. Torosyan showed up and proceeded to scream obscenities at him.  The  two of them allegedly got into a scuffle, which body shop employees broke up.

Fitilchyan alleges A. Torosyan left but then returned with his brother Robert Torosyan (R. Torosyan), who charged Fitilchyan and struck him with his fists. Fitilchyan alleges that A. Torosyan then produced a gun and began shooting at them, in response to which Gasparyan retrieved a gun and returned fire.

            The Torosyan Action alleges this same essential set of facts; except that the meeting at the body shop is alleged as a set up at which A. Torosyan and R. Torosyan were ambushed. This Torosyan Action further alleges that following the shooting Fitilchyan, Gasparyan, and a third person attempted to extort A. Torosyan and R. Torosyan by convincing them to pay $2 million.

Moving party here, Ashot Mkhitaryan, is a named defendant in the Torosyan Action. He is not alleged to have participated in the assault and battery cause of action but is named as a co-conspirator on that claim. He is also sued under the extortion, negligence, and other causes of action.

            Before the Court are two motions by Mkhitaryan to deem matters admitted. Mkhitaryan served A. Torosyan and R. Torosyan each with a set of Requests for Admission that neither has responded to. Mkhitaryan is therefore entitled to the relief requested. The motions for an order deeming matters admitted are granted, and monetary sanctions are awarded.

 

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280 provides:

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, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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.

(b) 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 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(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 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.

 

 

III.      DISCUSSION

            A. Evidence

            Mkhitaryan’s attorney, Frederic J. Greenblatt, has filed a declaration in support of each motion. Because the information is largely the same these declarations are referred to in the singular. The evidence accompanying these motions establishes that on November 16, 2022, Mkhitaryan served A. Torosyan and R. Torosyan each with Requests for Admission, Set One. The Torosyans are self-represented. Greenblatt sent a cover letter with the discovery informing them that verified responses were due December 19, 2022. Greenblatt Declaration, ¶¶10 and 12 and Exhibits 1 and 2 thereto.  On December 21, 2022, Greenblatt emailed A. Torosyan and R. Torosyan informing them that responses were late; but he granted them each seven more days to respond. Id. at ¶13 and Exhibit 3. On December 22, 2022, A. Torosyan and R. Torosyan responded by email and requested an additional 30 days to respond; Greenblatt responded that 30 days was not possible but that he would give them an additional 14 days, to January 3, 2023, to provide responses. Id. at ¶¶13, 16-18 and Exhibits 3 and 5-7.

            On January 6, 2023, despite the lack of responses, Greenblatt wrote A. Torosyan and R. Torosyan to provide one last extension of time to respond. Id. at ¶19 and exhibit 8. No responses were ever received. Id. at ¶20.

            B. The Motions Are Granted

            Based on the above evidence, Mkhitaryan has established that A. Torosyan and R. Torosyan were each served with a set of Requests for Admission, and that neither has provided responses despite numerous promptings to do so and despite extensions of time to respond. Accordingly, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280, the motions are granted.

            C. Monetary Sanctions Are Awarded

            Mkhitaryan is entitled to a monetary sanction against A. Torosyan and against R. Torosyan for the cost of these motions. The notices of motion indicate that $4,820 is sought as to each. The Greenblatt Declaration indicates that after 42 years of practice his billing rate is $595/hour; the Court finds this to be a reasonable rate. Greenblatt indicates that each motion required 6.5 hours of work and that he anticipates another 1.5 to prepare for and attend the hearing. The Court finds that 3 hours per motion for preparation and 1 hour per motion for appearance is reasonable. Four hours at $595/hour is $2,380.

 

IV.      CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The motions by Defendant Ashot Mkhitaryan for orders deeming matters admitted and for monetary sanctions are granted.    

            As to Akop Torosyan, the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. Akop Torosyan is ordered to pay a monetary sanction of $2,380 to Mkhitaryan within 20 days of notice of this order.

            As to Robert Torosyan, the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. Robert Torosyan is ordered to pay a monetary sanction of $2,380 to Mkhitaryan within 20 days of notice of this order.

            Mkhitaryan is ordered to provide notice.

 

 

           

Dated:                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                                          MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                                 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT