Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV03455, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03455 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
| 
   vs.  | 
  
   Case
  No.:  | 
  
   23STCV03455  | 
 
| 
   | 
  
   | 
 |
| 
   Hearing
  Date:  | 
  
    November
   6, 2024  | 
  
 |
| 
   | 
  
   | 
 |
| 
   Time:  | 
  
   | 
 |
| 
   | 
  
   | 
 |
| 
   [tentative]
  Order RE: (1)  
  plaintiff’s
  motion to deem requests for admissions admitted (2)  
  plaintiff’s
  motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents  | 
 ||
MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian  
RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed
(1)  
Motion
to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted
(2)  
Motion
to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents
The court
considered the moving papers filed in connection with each motion.[1]  No opposition papers were filed.  
MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
ADMITTED
Plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian
(“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) deeming admitted the truth of
the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set One, served on
defendant Advanced Skin Care Center Inc. (“Defendant”), and (2) awarding monetary
sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,720.
If a party to whom requests
for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the court shall,
upon motion by the propounding party, order that 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, a proposed response that is in substantial compliance with Code of
Civil Procedure section 2033.220.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b),
(c).)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 
Plaintiff served Defendant
with her Requests for Admission, Set One, by mail[2] on April 8, 2024.  (Banayan Decl., Ex. F, pp. 1–5 [Requests for
Admission on Defendant], 6 [proof of electronic service of Requests for
Admission on Defendant’s counsel].)  Defendant
did not serve timely responses and had not served responses as of the date that
Plaintiff filed this motion.  (Banayan
Decl., ¶ 7.)  Defendant did not file
opposition papers or other evidence with the court establishing that, before
the hearing on this motion, it served a proposed response to the Requests for
Admission that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd.
(c).)  The court therefore grants
Plaintiff’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc.,
§2033.280, subds. (b), (c).) 
The court grants Plaintiff’s
request for monetary sanctions.  (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  The
court finds that $895 ((1.5 hours x $550 hourly rate) + $70 filing fee) is a
reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with
this motion.  (Banayan Decl., ¶ 8.)
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff moves the court for
an order (1) compelling Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Requests
for Production of Documents, Set Two, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in
favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $2,702.
If a party to whom a demand
for inspection is directed fails to serve a timely response, the party making
the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.¿ (Code Civ.
Proc., §¿2031.300, subd. (b).)¿¿ 
Plaintiff served Defendant
with her Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, on April 22, 2024, by
email.[3]  (Banayan Decl., Ex. 1, p. 6.)  Defendant did not serve timely responses and
had not served responses to this discovery as of the date that Plaintiff filed
this motion.  (Banayan Decl., ¶ 4.)  Defendant did not file opposition papers or
other evidence with the court establishing that it has since served responses. 
The court therefore grants
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to serve responses to her Requests for
Production of Documents, Set Two.  (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) 
The court grants Plaintiff’s
request for monetary sanctions.  (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)  The
court finds that $1,170 ((2 hours x reasonable hourly rate of $550) + $70
filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in
connection with this motion.  (Banayan
Decl., ¶ 5.)
ORDER
            The court grants plaintiff Kristin
Davidkhanian’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted. 
            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 2033.280, the court orders that the truth of the matters specified in
plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian’s Requests for Admission, Set One, served on
defendant Advanced Skin Care Center Inc. on April 8, 2024, is deemed admitted. 
            The court grants plaintiff Kristin
Davidkhanian’s motion to compel responses to requests for production of
documents.  
            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 2031.300, the court orders defendant Advanced Skin Care Center Inc. (1)
to serve on plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian full and complete verified
responses, without objections, that comply with Code of Civil Procedure
sections 2031.210-2031.250, to plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian’s Requests for
Production of Documents, Set Two, and (2) to produce to plaintiff Kristin
Davidkhanian all documents and things in defendant Advanced Skin Care Center
Inc.’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to those requests,
within 20 days of the date of service of this order. 
            The court orders defendant Advanced
Skin Care Center Inc. to pay monetary sanctions to plaintiff Kristin
Davidkhanian in the total amount of $2,065 within 30 days of the date of
service of this order. 
            The court orders plaintiff Kristin
Davidkhanian to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:  
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court
[1] On
July 29, 2024, the court issued an order (1) advancing the hearing on the
motion to deem requests for admission admitted from February 18, 2025 to
November 6, 2024, and (2) advancing the hearing on the motion to compel
responses to requests for production of documents, set two, from April 15, 2025
to November 6, 2024.  (July 29, 2024 Order,
¶¶ 4-5.)  Plaintiff Kristin Davidkhanian
gave notice of the court’s order to counsel for the defendants on July 31,
2024.  (Aug. 23, 2024 Notice of Hearing
and Order, pp. 2, 4 [proof of service].) 
[2]
The court notes that, although counsel for Plaintiff has stated, in his
declaration, that service of this discovery was by email, the proof of service
states that the discovery was served by mail. 
(Banayan Decl., ¶ 6; Banayan Decl., Ex. F, p. 6:16-19 [stating service
was effected by mail].) 
[3]
The court notes that the proof of service states that the discovery was served
on April 23, 2024.  (Banayan Decl., Ex.
1, p. 6:6-7.)  However, Plaintiff has
attached a copy of the email, which appears to show that Plaintiff served this discovery
on Defendant on April 22, 2024.  (Banayan
Decl., Ex. 2, p. 2.)