Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV32691, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32691    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: 45

LISA BERBERIAN V. STEPHAN FILIP PC

MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

Date of Hearing:          March 5, 2025                         Trial Date:       August 25, 2025  

Department:               45                                            Case No:          22STCV32691

Moving Party:             Defendant Stephan Filip PC

Responding Party:       N/A

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is a legal malpractice action that arises from Defendant Stephan Filip PC’s representation of Plaintiff Lisa Berberian (“Plaintiff”). On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Stephan Filip PC, Stephan Airapetian, and Does 1-10, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence (Legal Malpractice); (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (3) Breach of Contract.

On December 21, 2023, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

On September 30, 2024, Defendant Stephan Filip PC (“Defendant”) filed and served its Motion for an Order Deeming Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, Admitted.

As of February 28, 2025, no opposition or reply has been filed.

[TENTATIVE} RULING: GRANT

Defendant’s Motion for an Order Deeming Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, Admitted (“the RFAs Motion”) is GRANTED. Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, are deemed admitted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admissions under Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.010, 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, as well as for monetary sanctions.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿The party who has failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing (1) that the party has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a)(1)-(2).)¿The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

ANALYSIS

In support of the RFAs Motion, Defendant’s counsel, Gregory B. Emdee (“Emdee”), provided a declaration. Plaintiff was served with a set of Requests for Admission on August 2, 2024. (Emdee Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Despite Defendant’s attempts to reach out to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has failed to provide verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Two. (Emdee Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)

Here, Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiff, to which Plaintiff has failed to respond. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to deem admitted Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Two.

The RFAs Motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, are deemed admitted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the RFAs Motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set Two, are deemed admitted.