Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00760, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00760    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49 

Date: 9-15-22 

Case # 21CHCV00760  

Trial Date: April 17, 2023

ADMISSIONS 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Olga Kapustin  

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted 

SUMMARY OF ACTION 

On September 30, 2021, Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, and Common Counts. On January 14, 2022, Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation DBA Shulman Family Group filed a first amended complaint for Breach of Contract, and Common Counts. On June 6, 2022, Kasputin answered the complaint and filed  cross-complaint for Fraud and Declaratory Relief. 

On June 27, 2022, Defendant Olga Kapustin (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed this instant Motion to Deem RFA’s Admitted.

On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed its opposition. Plaintiff argues that the Requests for Admission in dispute were directed to “Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group” which was not a party to this litigation at the time of the service of these Requests for Admissions. Pursuant CCP §2033.010, Plaintiff argues that Maya Shulman, an individual, who was propounded with discovery requests on January 27, 2022, was no longer a party to this suit, and only out of “professional courtesy” did Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation d/b/a Shulman Family Law Group, the actual plaintiff in this suit, responded to discovery.  Plaintiff in opposition contends the subject discovery was propounded on Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group rather than Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation DBA Shulman Family Group. Thus, the discovery is now null and void. Plaintiff characterizes the motion as “frivolous.” 

On September 8, 2022, Defendant filed its reply, arguing that Plaintiff’s position that Maya Shulman, an individual, was no longer a party to this suit when served with the instant discovery requests on January 27, 2022, is not an applicable defense to not providing verified responses because on May 30, 2022, Defendant accepted Plaintiff’s discovery response on behalf of Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation. (Ex. 3-2). Defendant acknowledges the responses received from Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation DBA Shulman Family Group, but the responses contain a defective verification.

Plaintiff Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group or Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation DBA Shulman Family Group alleges Defendant Olga Kapustin owes $93,931.48 for legal services rendered.  

RULING: Denied. 

Defendant, Olga Kapustin moves to deem Request for Admissions (set one) admitted from Plaintiff, Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation DBA Shulman Family Law Group. Defendant represents service on “Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group” on January 27, 2022. [Declaration of Robert Gentino, ¶ 1, Ex. 1.] Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation DBA Shulman Family Law Group provided responses on February 10, 2022 with a verification provided by “Maya Shulman.”  

As addressed in the May 25, 2022 motion to strike, the court found the first amended complaint substituting “Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group” for ”Maya Shulman dba Shulman Family Law Group (erroneously originally named as Maya Shulman)” was allowed. The subject motion once again raises the argument regarding previously served discovery and the requirement of a response from the properly named party. Like the prior case, the subject admissions were not served on Maya Shulman, a Law Corporation DBA Shulman Family Group. [Gentino Decl., Ex. 1.] The court advised the parties that they may agree to an accord to whereby the parties either voluntarily accept the previous discovery or Defendant re-serves the items to the correctly named defendant. Plaintiff was also advised of the option to submit an amended verification. Apparently, Defendant agreed to accept the responses, but no new verification was provided. Defendant attempted to compel an amended verification. [Gentino Decl., Ex. 3] 

While the court notes the service of responses from current plaintiff, the court cannot compel a verification due to service on the formerly identified party. The motion is therefore denied, without prejudice, on technical grounds.  

Sanctions denied to both parties. 

Moving Defendant to give notice.