ANISE HUTCHERSON VS EBRAHIM OMRANI, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC02861 Hearing Date: August 19, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER CANCELLING REQUEST FOR\r\nDISMISSAL FILED IN ERROR

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nAnise Hutcherson

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 473(b))

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Anise\r\nHutcherson’s Motion for Order Cancelling Request for Dismissal Filed in Error\r\nis GRANTED. The dismissal entered on July 7, 2021 is HEREBY VACATED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 17,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof August 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of\r\nfiduciary duties, and violations of Civil Code section 1102, et seq. against\r\nDefendants Ebrahim Omrani (“Omrani”), Sasan Parsakar (“Parsakar”), Joseph Cohen\r\n(“Cohen”), Rashad Winston individually and DBA Winston Group Realty\r\n(“Winston”), and Winston Legacy Enterprises, Inc. (“Winston Enterprises”).\r\nDefault was entered against Defendant Winston on May 26, 2020 and against\r\nDefendant Winston Legacy on June 1, 2020. Defendants Omrani, Parsakar, and\r\nCohen filed an Answer on June 10, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a\r\nrequest for dismissal of the entire action and all causes of action with\r\nprejudice. (7/6/21 Request for Dismissal.) The action was dismissed as\r\nrequested on July 7. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 13, Plaintiff filed the\r\ninstant Motion for an Order Cancelling Request for Dismissal Filed in Error\r\n(the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff seeks relief\r\npursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (Mot., pp.\r\n1-2.) Under this statute,\r\nan application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of\r\nthe judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought\r\nand must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake,\r\ninadvertence, surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v.\r\nIKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s request is timely. She\r\nseeks to set aside the dismissal entered on July 7 due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s\r\nmistake and inadvertence. (Mot., pp. 3-5.) Specifically, counsel explains he\r\nintended to dismiss a different case that involves the same Plaintiff, Case No.\r\n20STLC01867. (Id., Bower Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) Without Plaintiff’s knowledge\r\nor consent, the request for dismissal was mistakenly filed in this action. (Id.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the timely request to\r\nvacate the dismissal supported by an attorney affidavit of fault, the unopposed\r\nMotion is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nAnise Hutcherson’s Motion for Order Cancelling Request for Dismissal Filed in\r\nError is GRANTED. The dismissal entered on July 7, 2021 is HEREBY VACATED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'

Case Number: 20STLC02861    Hearing Date: May 10, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SASAN PARSAKAR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT JOSEPH COHEN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Sasan Parsakar’s Responses to Request for Production and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Joseph Cohen’s Responses to Request for Production are GRANTED. Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen are ordered to serve verified responses without objections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the total amount of $838.30. Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen are each to pay sanctions of $419.15 within thirty (30) days of notice 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: None filed as of May 6, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 6, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of Civil Code section 1102, et seq. against Defendants Ebrahim Omrani (“Omrani”), Sasan Parsakar (“Parsakar”), Joseph Cohen (“Cohen”), Rashad Winston individually and DBA Winston Group Realty (“Winston”), and Winston Legacy Enterprises, Inc. (“Winston Enterprises”). Default was entered against Defendant Winston on May 26, 2020 and against Defendant Winston Legacy on June 1, 2020. Defendants Omrani, Parsakar, and Cohen filed an Answer on June 10, 2020.

On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Sasan Parsakar’s Responses to Request for Production and Request for Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Joseph Cohen’s Responses to Request for Production and Request for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). No opposition was filed.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant Parsakar and Cohen’s counsel with Requests for Production, Set One, one for each Defendant, via express mail, overnight delivery, and email on November 6, 2020. (Motions, Bower Decls., ¶¶ 4-5, Exhs. C-2 and C-3.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s counsel states he sent Defendants’ counsel an email regarding the overdue responses on December 20, 2020. (Id., pp. 6, Bower Decl., ¶¶ 6.) No responses were received. (Id. at ¶¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen to provide verified responses without objections to the Requests for Production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

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).)

The Court finds Defendant Parsakar’s and Defendant Cohen’s failure to respond to the Requests for Production a misuse of the discovery process.

Plaintiff’s counsel requests $426.65 for each Motion based on 1 hour of attorney time billed at $350.00 per hour, one remote appearance fee of $15.00, and one filing fee of $61.65. (Motions, Bower Decls., ¶¶ 8-9.) As these motions are being heard together, only one remote appearance fee is awarded and is evenly split between Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen. Plaintiff’s remaining request is reasonable. Thus, the Court awards a total of $838.30 in sanctions. Defendant Parsakar is ordered to pay sanctions of $419.15 and Defendant Cohen is ordered to pay sanctions of $419.15 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Sasan Parsakar’s Responses to Request for Production and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Joseph Cohen’s Responses to Request for Production are GRANTED. Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen are ordered to serve verified responses without objections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the total amount of $838.30. Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen are each to pay sanctions of $419.15 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC02861    Hearing Date: March 17, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., March 17, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Hutcherson v. Omrani, et al. COMPL. FILED: 03-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02861 DISC. C/O: 08-25-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT SASAN PARSAKAR’S RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT JOSEPH COHEN’S RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Sasan Parsakar’s Responses Without Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Joseph Cohen’s Responses Without Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions are GRANTED. Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen are ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the total amount of $838.30. Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen are each to pay sanctions of $419.15 within thirty (30) days of notice 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: None filed as of March 15, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 15, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of Civil Code section 1102, et seq. against Defendants Ebrahim Omrani (“Omrani”), Sasan Parsakar (“Parsakar”), Joseph Cohen (“Cohen”), Rashad Winston individually and DBA Winston Group Realty (“Winston”), and Winston Legacy Enterprises, Inc. (“Winston Enterprises”). Default was entered against Defendant Winston on May 26, 2020 and against Defendant Winston Legacy on June 1, 2020. Defendants Omrani, Parsakar, and Cohen filed an Answer on June 10, 2020.

On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Sasan Parsakar’s Responses Without Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Joseph Cohen’s Responses Without Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”).

To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

1. Special 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant Parsakar and Cohen’s counsel with Special Interrogatories, Set One, on November 6, 2020 via express mail, overnight delivery. (Motions, Bower Decls. ¶¶ 5, Exhs. B-2 and B-3.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s counsel states he sent Defendants’ counsel an email regarding the lack of discovery responses on December 20, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 6.) Defendant Parsakar and Cohen’s counsel did not respond. (Id., pp. 6:9-14, Bower Decls., ¶¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant Parsakar and Cohen to provide verified responses without objections to the Special Interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

1. 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).)

The Court finds Defendant Parsakar’s and Defendant Cohen’s failure to respond to the Special Interrogatories a misuse of the discovery process.

Plaintiff’s counsel requests $426.65 for each Motion based on 1 hour of attorney time billed at $350.00 per hour, one remote appearance fee of $15.00, and one filing fee of $61.65. (Motions, Bower Decls., ¶¶ 8-9.) As these motions are being heard together, only one remote appearance fee is awarded and is evenly split between Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen. Plaintiff’s remaining request is reasonable. Thus, the Court awards a total of $838.30 in sanctions. Defendant Parsakar is ordered to pay sanctions of $419.15 and Defendant Cohen is ordered to pay sanctions of $419.15 within thirty (30) days of this order.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Sasan Parsakar’s Responses Without Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Joseph Cohen’s Responses Without Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions are GRANTED. Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen are ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the total amount of $838.30. Defendant Parsakar and Defendant Cohen are each to pay sanctions of $419.15 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC02861    Hearing Date: March 16, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., March 16, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Hutcherson v. Omrani, et al. COMPL. FILED: 03-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02861 DISC. C/O: 08-25-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING THE TRUTH OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS ADMITTED AS TO DEFENDANT JOSEPH COHEN AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT EBRAHIM OMRANI’S RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.300; 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s (1) Motion for Order Deeming the Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents Admitted as to Defendant Joseph Cohen and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Ebrahim Omrani’s Responses without Objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories are GRANTED. Defendant Omrani is ordered to serve responses without objections to Special Interrogatories, Set One, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the total amount of $838.30. Defendant Cohen and Defendant Omrani are each to pay sanctions of $419.15 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: None filed as of March 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 12, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of Civil Code section 1102, et seq. against Defendants Ebrahim Omrani (“Omrani”), Sasan Parsakar (“Parsakar”), Joseph Cohen (“Cohen”), Rashad Winston individually and DBA Winston Group Realty (“Winston”), and Winston Legacy Enterprises, Inc. (“Winston Enterprises”). Default was entered against Defendant Winston on May 26, 2020 and against Defendant Winston Legacy on June 1, 2020. Defendants Omrani, Parsakar, and Cohen filed an Answer on June 10, 2020.

On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion for Order Deeming the Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents Admitted as to Defendant Joseph Cohen and Request for Sanctions (the “RFA Motion”) and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Ebrahim Omrani’s Responses Without Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (the “Interrogatories Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Requests for Admission

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] 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 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 a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant Cohen’s counsel with Requests for Admission, Set One, on November 6, 2020 via express mail, overnight delivery. (RFA Mot., Bower Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A-3.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s counsel states he sent Defendant’s counsel an email regarding the lack of responses on December 20, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant Cohen’s counsel did not respond. (Id., p. 6:9-14, Bower Decl.,¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Defendant Cohen. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

B. 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant Omrani’s counsel with Special Interrogatories, Set One, on November 6, 2020 via express mail, overnight delivery. (Interrogatories Mot., Bower Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B-1.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s counsel states he sent Defendant’s counsel an email regarding the lack of responses on December 20, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant Omrani’s counsel did not respond. (Id., p. 6:9-14, Bower Decl.,¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant Omrani to provide verified responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

C. Request for 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 to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, 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 this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Defendant Cohen’s failure to respond to the Requests for Admission, Set One, and Defendant Omrani’s failure to respond to the Special Interrogatories, Set One, a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Defendant Cohen for his failure to respond to the Request for Admissions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Plaintiff’s counsel requests $426.65 for each Motion based on 1 hour of attorney time billed at $350.00 per hour, one remote appearance fee of $15.00, and one filing fee of $61.65. (Motions, Bower Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.) As these motions are being heard together, only one remote appearance fee is awarded and is evenly split between Defendant Cohen and Defendant Omrani. Plaintiff’s remaining request is reasonable. Thus, the Court awards a total of $838.30 in sanctions. Defendant Cohen is ordered to pay sanctions of $419.15 and Defendant Omrani is ordered to pay sanctions of $419.15 within thirty (30) days of this order.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s (1) Motion for Order Deeming the Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents Admitted as to Defendant Joseph Cohen and (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Ebrahim Omrani’s Responses without Objections to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories are GRANTED. Defendant Omrani is ordered to serve responses without objections to Special Interrogatories, Set One, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the total amount of $838.30. Defendant Cohen and Defendant Omrani are each to pay sanctions of $419.15 within thirty (30) days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC02861    Hearing Date: March 15, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Mon., March 15, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Hutcherson v. Omrani, et al. COMPL. FILED: 03-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02861 DISC. C/O: 08-25-21

PROCEEDINGS:     MOTION TO FOR ORDER DEEMING THE TRUTH OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS ADMITTED AS TO DEFENDANT SASAN PARSAKAR AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS  

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s unopposed Motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant Sasan Parsakar is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $426.65 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice 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: None filed as of March 11, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 11, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of Civil Code section 1102, et seq. against Defendants Ebrahim Omrani (“Omrani”), Sasan Parsakar (“Parsakar”), Joseph Cohen (“Cohen”), Rashad Winston individually and DBA Winston Group Realty (“Winston”), and Winston Legacy Enterprises, Inc. (“Winston Enterprises”). Default was entered against Defendant Winston on May 26, 2020 and against Defendant Winston Legacy on June 1, 2020. Defendants Omrani, Parsakar, and Cohen filed an Answer on June 10, 2020.

On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Deeming the Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents Admitted as to Defendant Sasan Parsakar and Request for Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Requests for Admission

 

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)  “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] 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 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 a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).)  A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant Parsakar’s counsel with Requests for Admission, Set One, on November 6, 2020 via express mail, overnight delivery. (Mot., Bower, Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A-2.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s counsel states he sent Defendant Parsakar’s counsel an email regarding the lack of responses on December 20, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant Parsakar’s counsel did not respond. (Id., p. 6:9-14, Bower Decl., ¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Defendant Parsakar. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

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).)

The Court finds Defendant Parsakar’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Defendant Parsakar for his failure to respond to the Requests for Admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions of $426.65, based on one hour of attorney time billed at $350.00 per hour, one filing fee of $61.65, and one remote appearance fee of $15.00. (Mot., Bower Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.) The Court finds this request reasonable.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s unopposed Motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant Sasan Parsakar is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $426.65 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC02861    Hearing Date: March 8, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., March 8, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Hutcherson v. Omrani, et al. COMPL. FILED: 03-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02861 DISC. C/O: 08-25-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT OMRANI’S RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING THE TRUTH OF FACTS AND GENUINNESS OF DOCUMENTS ADMITTED AS TO DEFENDANT OMRANI AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2031.300; 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted are GRANTED. Defendant Omrani is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to the Requests for Production within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $663.30 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice 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: None filed as of March 3, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 3, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of Civil Code section 1102, et seq. against Defendants Ebrahim Omrani (“Omrani”), Sasan Parsakar (“Parsakar”), Joseph Cohen (“Cohen”), Rashad Winston individually and DBA Winston Group Realty (“Winston”), and Winston Legacy Enterprises, Inc. (“Winston Enterprises”). Default was entered against Defendant Winston on May 26, 2020 and against Defendant Winston Legacy on June 1, 2020. Defendants Omrani, Parsakar, and Cohen filed an Answer on June 10, 2020.

On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Omrani’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions (the “Production” Motion and (2) Motion for Order Deeming the Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents Admitted as to Defendant Omrani and Request for Sanctions (the “RFA Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”). No opposition was filed.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant Omrani’s counsel with Requests for Production on November 6, 2020 via express mail. (Production Mot., Bower Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. C-1.) Although not required, on December 20, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel states he sent Defendant Omrani’s counsel an email regarding the lack of responses. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant’s counsel did not respond to Plaintiff’s requests. (Id., pp. 7:19-8:7, Bower Decl., ¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant Omrani to provide verified responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

B. Requests for Admission

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] 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 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 a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant Omrani’s counsel with Requests for Admission, Set One, on November 6, 2020 via express mail. (RFA Mot., ¶ 5, Exh. A-1.) Although not required, Plaintiff’s counsel states he sent a letter to Defendant Omrani’ counsel regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendant’s counsel did not respond to Plaintiff’s requests. (Id., pp. 7:18-8:4, Bower Decl., at ¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Defendant Omrani. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

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).)

The Court finds Defendant Omrani’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Defendant Omrani for his failure to respond to the Request for Admissions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions of $853.30, based on at least two hours of attorney time billed at $350.00 per hour, two filing fees of $61.65, and two remote appearance fees of $15.00. (Motions, Bower Decls., ¶¶ 8-9.) However, the Court finds the amount sought excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical motions and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $663.30, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time, two filing fees, and one remote appearance fee, to be reasonable.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Anise Hutcherson’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to the Requests for Production within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $663.30 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.