This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/20/2021 at 00:42:23 (UTC).

ALLEN R. KING VS ANNA DARBINIAN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/17/2020 ALLEN R KING filed an Other lawsuit against ANNA DARBINIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3421

  • Filing Date:

    04/17/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KING ALLEN R.

Defendants

DARBINIAN ANNA

ASHERSON NEVILLE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KING ALLEN

Defendant Attorney

SHAMTOB EDRIN

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/6/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/6/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Compliance with Demurrer Meet and Confer Requirements of CCP Section 430.41

7/27/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Compliance with Demurrer Meet and Confer Requirements of CCP Section 430.41

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

8/6/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

8/6/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Complaint - Complaint

4/17/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

4/17/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/17/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

4/17/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4/17/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/21/2023
  • Hearing04/21/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2021
  • Hearing10/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Compliance with Demurrer Meet and Confer Requirements of CCP Section 430.41; Filed by: Anna Darbinian (Defendant); Neville Asherson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); Service Cost: 100.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); Service Cost: 100.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); As to: Anna Darbinian (Defendant); Neville Asherson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); As to: Anna Darbinian (Defendant); Neville Asherson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); As to: Anna Darbinian (Defendant); Neville Asherson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); Service Cost: 100.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); Service Cost: 100.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); As to: Anna Darbinian (Defendant); Neville Asherson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); As to: Anna Darbinian (Defendant); Neville Asherson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Allen R. King (Plaintiff); As to: Anna Darbinian (Defendant); Neville Asherson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/21/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC03421    Hearing Date: March 24, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., March 24, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: King v. Darbinian, et al. COMP. FILED: 04-17-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC03421 DISC. C/O: 09-15-21

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 09-30-21

TRIAL DATE: 10-15-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Allen King, attorney in pro per

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Anna Darbinian and Neville Asherson

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Allen King’s Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant Anna Darbinian is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7 within thirty (30) days of this order. Plaintiff is also awarded costs of $74.15 to be paid within thirty (30) days of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on December 28, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 22, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On April 17, 2020, Plaintiff Allen R. King (“Plaintiff”), attorney pro per, filed a verified complaint for wrongful cancellation of limited liability company and wrongful dissolution of limited liability company against Defendants Anna Darbinian (“Darbinian”) and Neville Asherson (“Asherson”) (collectively, Defendants”). Defendants filed an Answer on August 27, 2020.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (the “Motion”) on December 24, 2020. Defendants filed an Opposition on December 28. No reply brief was filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

At the direction of Plaintiff, Defendant Darbinian was served with Special Interrogatories, Set One, on August 3, 2020 via regular mail. (Mot., King Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. I.) Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories include a proof of service demonstrating Judith Lopez (“Lopez”) served the discovery on Defendants’ counsel via first-class mail on August 3, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff’s Motion also includes the declaration of Lopez attesting she served the Special Interrogatories, Set One, via email and regular mail on August 3, 2020. (Id., Lopez Decl., ¶ 2.) The propounded discovery includes seven special interrogatories. (Id.)

Plaintiff states Defendant Darbinian did not respond to SPROG No. 6 or No. 7. (Id., King Decl.,3, Exh. 3.) Although Plaintiff is not required to meet and confer prior to filing this Motion, he provides evidence that on November 12, 2020, November 20, 2020, and November 30, 2020, he sent an email to Defendants’ counsel regarding the missing discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff did not receive any responses to SPROG Nos. 6 and 7. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

In Opposition, Defendants state Plaintiff himself served Defendants’ counsel with two sets of discovery, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, via email on August 4, 2020. (Oppo., pp. 3:25-28, Shamtob Decl., ¶ ¶ 6-7, Exh. A.) Defendants attach a copy of the August 4 email and argue the discovery only included five Special Interrogatories and that it did not include SPROG Nos. 6 and 7. (Id.) However, because Plaintiff is self-represented, he cannot properly serve discovery requests himself. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a.) In addition, Plaintiff’s email states “[t]here were two sets served,” implying this discovery had been previously served. (Oppo., Shamtob Decl., ¶ ¶ 6-7, Exh. A.) At most, the discovery sets Plaintiff emailed to Defendants’ counsel on August 4 were courtesy copies. Thus, the discovery served via mail by Lopez, which consists of seven Special Interrogatories (Mot., King Decl., ¶ 2, Exh 1, Lopez Decl., ¶ 2) is what the Court relies on in ruling on this Motion. The proof of service attached to the Special Interrogatories shows that Lopez served the discovery on Defendants’ counsel Edrin Shamtob at 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067. (Mot., King Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) This is the same address on Defendants’ counsel papers.

Notably, Defendants’ Motion is silent as to whether the discovery mailed by Lopez was received or whether the mailed discovery set was also allegedly incomplete. “A letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail.” (Evid. Code, § 641.) Thus, the discovery served by mail, which consists of the seven Special Interrogatories, is presumed to have been received by Defendants’ counsel. Defendants have not presented any evidence allowing the Court to conclude otherwise.

As noted above, Defendants’ counsel is presumed to have been properly served with the discovery, so Defendant Darbinian was required to respond. Defendants did not present any evidence demonstrating she provided any responses to SPROG No. 6 and 7. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant Darbinian to respond to SPROG Nos. 6 and 7. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

B. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of $748.75 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $300.00, one motion fee of $60.00, and one e-filing fee of $14.15. (Mot., p. 7:7-8:21, King Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) As Defendants point out, self-represented attorneys, such as Plaintiff, cannot recover attorney’s fees as discovery sanctions. (Kravitz .v Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021.) However, reasonably identifiable expenses are recoverable. (Id.) Thus, the Court awards Plaintiff costs of $74.14.

In Opposition, Defendants argue the Court should award sanctions against Plaintiff, in part, because Plaintiff refused Defendants’ counsel’s offer to provide responses to the discovery if this Motion was withdrawn. (Oppo., p. 7:18-28.) However, as discussed above, Plaintiff was entitled to responses to SPROG Nos. 6 and 7. As Plaintiff never received responses to SPROG Nos. 6 and 7, he was not required to withdraw his Motion. Even if responses had been provided, Plaintiff would have been permitted to keep this Motion on calendar to recover his costs as a result of Defendant Darbinian’s failure to respond to the discovery. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Allen King’s Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant Anna Darbinian is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7 within thirty (30) days of this order. Plaintiff is also awarded costs of $74.15 to be paid within thirty (30) days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KING ALLEN