Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV08160, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV08160 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023 Dept: 48
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
PROMETHEUS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. PINEAPPLE PARK, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND GRANTING IN PART REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS; GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED AND GRANTING IN PART
REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS Dept. 48 8:30 a.m. March 28, 2023 |
On
March 7, 2022, Plaintiff Prometheus Management, LLC filed this action against Defendants
Pineapple Park, LLC, Pineapple Ventures, Inc., and Vincent Zadeh (erroneously sued
as Vincent Mehdizadeh). The Court later entered
default against Pineapple Park, LLC.
On
September 29, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories,
Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production of Documents on Defendants. Plaintiff has not received any responses.
On
January 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed six motions to compel discovery responses (three
for each defendant). Plaintiff also filed
two motions to deem requests for admissions admitted (one for each defendant).
MOTIONS
TO COMPEL RESPONSES
When
a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make
an order compelling responses. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting,
Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party who fails to serve timely responses waives
any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection
of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)
Sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or
opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification
or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Neither
Pineapple Ventures, Inc. nor Vincent Zadeh served responses to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests. They did not file any oppositions
to the motions. Accordingly, the motions
to compel are GRANTED.
Pineapple
Ventures, Inc. is ORDERED to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s
(1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3)
Requests for Production of Documents, Set One within 21 days.
Vincent
Zadeh is ORDERED to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s
(1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3)
Requests for Production of Documents, Set One within 21 days.
The
requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART.
Because no oppositions were filed, the Court will not award attorney fees
for time reviewing oppositions and preparing replies. The Court also will not award fees for time spent
in connection with the hearings on the motions because the motions are unopposed
and Plaintiff has the option to submit on the tentative ruling.
Pineapple
Ventures, Inc. is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $690.00 ($170.00 attorney
fees and $60.00 filing fee for each of the three motions) within 21 days.
Vincent
Zadeh is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $690.00 ($170.00 attorney fees and
$60.00 filing fee for each of the three motions) within 21 days.
MOTIONS TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION ADMITTED
Where
a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections,
unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party
has subsequently served a substantially compliant response and that the party’s
failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) A monetary sanction against the party whose failure
to serve a timely response to requests for admission is mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Neither
Pineapple Ventures, Inc. nor Vincent Zadeh served responses to Plaintiff’s Requests
for Admission, Set One. They did not file
any oppositions to the motions. Accordingly,
the motions to deem Requests for Admission, Set One admitted are GRANTED.
The
requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART.
Because no oppositions were filed, the Court will not award attorney fees
for time reviewing oppositions and preparing replies. The Court also will not award fees for time spent
in connection with the hearings on the motions because the motions are unopposed
and Plaintiff has the option to submit on the tentative ruling.
Pineapple
Ventures, Inc. is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $465.00 ($425.00 attorney
fees and $60.00 filing fee) within 21 days.
Vincent
Zadeh is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $230.00 ($170.00 attorney fees and
$60.00 filing fee) within 21 days.
Moving
party to give notice.
Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org
indicating intention to submit. Parties intending
to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with
Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical
or N95 or KN95 mask.
Dated this 28th day of March 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior
Court |