SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT V 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Andrey Zohrabian and Arusyak Torosyan    

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed  

Motions to Deem Matters in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, as Admitted by Defendant Silva Markosyan and Request for Monetary Sanctions   

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ respective motions to deem Set One of Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions as admitted. No opposition papers were filed.  

BACKGROUND 

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiffs Andrey Zohrabian (“Zohrabian”) and Arusyak Torosyan (“Torosyan”) filed a complaint against Defendants Armineh Torosian (“Torosian”) and Silva Markosyan (“Markosyan”) alleging a single cause of action for negligence.  

On November 20, 2023, Defendant Markosyan filed an answer to the complaint. On January 19, 2024, Defendant Torosian filed an answer to the complaint.  

On January 22, 2024, this case was reassigned from the Honorable Ralph C. Hofer to the Honorable Sarah J. Heidel in Department V at Alhambra Courthouse effective February 5, 2024.  

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff Zohrabian filed an unopposed motion to deem Plaintiff Zohrabian’s Requests for Admission, Set One, as admitted by Defendant Markosyan, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant Markosyan in the amount of $811.65 (the “Zohrabian RFA Motion”).  

Also, on February 14, 2024, Plaintiff Torosyan filed an unopposed motion to deem Plaintiff Torosyan’s Requests for Admission, Set One, as admitted by Defendant Markosyan, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant Markosyan in the amount of $811.65 (the “Torosyan RFA Motion”).  

The motions were served by electronic service on Defendant Markosyan on February 13, 2024. The motions were served pursuant to CCP § 1010.6(a)(2) which states that “[i]f a document is required to be served by certified or registered mail, electronic service of the document is not authorized.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(2).) “A person represented by counsel, who has appeared in an action or proceeding, shall accept electronic service of a notice or document that may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (b)(2).) “An unrepresented party may consent to receive electronic service.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(2).)  

Defendant Markosyan is representing herself in pro per and is not represented by counsel. As such, service of the motions by electronic service was improper. There is no indication in the court file that Defendant Markosyan has consented to receive electronic service. Moreover, the Court notes that the service list as to the motions does not set forth an electronic mail address at which the respective motions were served. It appears that the motions may have been served on Defendant Markosyan at 1000 E. Acacia Avenue, Apartment 5, Glendale, CA 91025. However, given that the proof of service is inconsistent as to what method Defendant Markosyan was served with the motions, the Court must ensure that Defendant Markosyan was properly served. As such, the Court cannot grant the motions.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

When a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission “[t]he party to whom the request was directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated [the] motion.”  (Id.)  

THE ZOHRABIAN RFA MOTION  

Plaintiff Zohrabian seeks an order that the truth of the matters in Plaintiff Zohrabian’s  

Requests for Admission, Set One, be deemed admitted by Defendant Markosyan. Plaintiff Zohrabian also moves for monetary sanctions against Defendant Markosyan in the amount of $811.65. 

Plaintiff Zohrabian served set one of his Requests for Admission on Defendant Markosyan on December 1, 2023; however, no responses have been received. (McReynolds Decl., ¶¶ 2-4; Exhs. A and B.) Plaintiff Zohrabian requests sanctions in the amount of $811.65 as to the motion. (McReynolds Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  

As stated above, Defendant Markosyan is representing herself in pro per and is not represented by counsel. Service of the Zohrabian RFA Motion by electronic service was improper. There is no indication in the court file that Defendant Markosyan has consented to electronic service. Moreover, the Court notes that the service list as to the Zohrabian RFA Motion does not set forth an electronic mail address.  

As such, the Zohrabian RFA Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  

THE TOROSYAN RFA MOTION  

Plaintiff Torosyan seeks an order that the truth of the matters in Plaintiff Torosyan’s  

Requests for Admission, Set One, be deemed admitted by Defendant Markosyan. Plaintiff Torosyan also moves for monetary sanctions against Defendant Markosyan in the amount of $811.65. 

Plaintiff Torosyan served set one of his Requests for Admission on Defendant Markosyan on December 1, 2023; however, no responses have been received. (McReynolds Decl., ¶¶ 2-4; Exhs. A and B.) Plaintiff Torosyan requests sanctions in the amount of $811.65 as to the motion. (McReynolds Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  

As stated above, Defendant Markosyan is representing herself in pro per and is not represented by counsel. Service of the Torosyan RFA Motion by electronic service was improper. There is no indication in the court file that Defendant Markosyan has consented to electronic service. Moreover, the Court notes that the service list as to the Torosyan RFA Motion does not set forth an electronic mail address.  

As such, the Torosyan RFA Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  

 

Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.