Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV42155, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42155    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Karlen Galstyan 

RESPONDING PARTY:        Unopposed

(1)   Defendant Karlen Galstyan’s Ex Parte Application for Relief

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Canon Business Properties, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:        Unopposed

(2)   Defendant Canon Business Properties, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with defendant Karlen Galstyan’s ex parte application.  The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with defendant Canon Business Properties, Inc.’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted and portions of the declaration of Hyka Karapetian as set forth more fully below.

DEFENDANT GALSTYAN’S EX PARTE APPLICATION

The court grants in part and denies in part the ex parte application filed by defendant Karlen Galstyan (“Galstyan”) as follows. 

The court will consider the evidence of defendant Galstyan’s responses to the Requests for Admissions served by defendant Canon Business Properties, Inc. (“Canon”), attached as Exhibit B to the declaration of Hyka Karapetian that is attached to Galstyan’s proposed opposition to Canon’s motion, which is attached as Exhibit E to the declaration of Hyka Karapetian that was filed in support of Galstyan’s ex parte application on September 6, 2022.

The court considers this evidence only for the limited purpose of establishing that defendant Galstyan served responses to defendant Canon’s Requests for Admissions, Set Two, before the hearing on defendant Canon’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).  (Karapetian Decl., ¶ 7 to Karapetian Ex Parte Decl., Ex. E; Karapetian Decl., Ex. B to Karapetian Decl., Ex. E.)

The court denies all other relief requested in defendant Galstyan’s ex parte application because defendant Galstyan has not satisfied the requirement of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202, subdivision (c), that an applicant for an ex parte order must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.

DEFENDANT CANON’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

Defendant Canon served its Requests for Admissions, Set Two on defendant Galstyan dba KG Road Service on November 18, 2021.  (Jones Decl., Ex. A.)  Canon granted Galstyan an extension, making responses due by January 10, 2022.  (Jones Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B.)  At the time Canon filed its motion on January 28, 2022, Galstyan had not served responses.  (Jones Decl., ¶ 9.)

If a party to whom requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, the court must, upon motion by the propounding party, order the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted unless the court finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, responses that are in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b), (c).)   

The court finds that Galstyan has presented evidence that he served, before the September 7, 2022 hearing on this motion, verified responses to Canon’s Requests for Admissions, Set Two, that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  (Karapetian Decl., Ex. B to Karapetian Ex Parte Decl., Ex. E.)  

The court therefore denies defendant Canon Business Properties, Inc.’s motion to deem its Requests for Admissions, Set Two, admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The court grants Canon’s request for monetary sanctions against Galstyan.  The evidence presented establishes that (1) Galstyan was served with Canon’s Requests for Admissions, Set Two, on November 18, 2021; (2) responses were due by January 10, 2022; and (3) Galstyan did not serve responses until February 2, 2022.   (Jones Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7; Jones Decl., Ex. A, B; Karapetian Decl., Ex. B to Karapetian Ex Parte Decl., Ex. E.)  Because Galstyan failed to serve timely responses to Canon’s Requests for Admissions, Set Two, sanctions are mandatory.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

The court finds that $660 (3 hours x $200 hourly rate = $600 in attorney’s fees + $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount of monetary sanctions to impose against Galstyan on this motion.  (Jones Decl., ¶ 10.)  The court orders defendant Karlen Galstyan dba KG Road Service to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $660 to defendant Canon Business Properties, Inc. within 30 days of the date of this order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

The court denies Canon’s request for monetary sanctions against Galstyan’s counsel because Canon’s notice of motion does not identify the attorney against whom the sanction is sought, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040.

            The court orders defendant Canon Business Properties, Inc. to give notice of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 7, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court