This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/16/2020 at 01:32:52 (UTC).

EASTVIEW TOWNHOUSE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION VS ALI CHEGINI, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/17/2019 EASTVIEW TOWNHOUSE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ALI CHEGINI. 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:

    *******3823

  • Filing Date:

    04/17/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

EASTVIEW TOWNHOUSE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION

Defendants

FARAHPOUR FARIMAH

CHEGINI ALI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SWEDELSON DAVID

Defendant Attorney

STELNICK STEFFANIE DANIELLE

 

Court Documents

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/7/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other to Deem Request Requests For Admiss...)

10/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other to Deem Request Requests For Admiss...)

Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration of Alexandra Samofalova

8/7/2020: Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration of Alexandra Samofalova

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

7/21/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other to Deem Requests For Admissions, Se...)

7/30/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other to Deem Requests For Admissions, Se...)

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Defendants Ali Chegini and Farimah Farahpour's Respective Depositions, etc.

5/19/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Defendants Ali Chegini and Farimah Farahpour's Respective Depositions, etc.

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/23/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

1/21/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

1/21/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: to Deem Requests For Admissions, Set One, Admitted Against Deft. FARIMAH FARAHPOUR by Plaintiff

10/22/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: to Deem Requests For Admissions, Set One, Admitted Against Deft. FARIMAH FARAHPOUR by Plaintiff

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: to Deem Requests For Admissions, Set One, Admitted Against Deft. ALI CHEGINA by Plaintiff

10/22/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: to Deem Requests For Admissions, Set One, Admitted Against Deft. ALI CHEGINA by Plaintiff

Answer - Answer

7/8/2019: Answer - Answer

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

5/21/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

5/21/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint - Complaint

4/17/2019: Complaint - Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

4/17/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/17/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

4/17/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/27/2021
  • Hearing05/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other to Deem Request Requests For Admiss...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other to Deem Request Requests For Admissions, Set One, Admitted Against Defendant FARIMAH FARAHPOUR by Plaintiff scheduled for 10/15/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/15/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other to Deem Requests For Admissions, Set One Admitted Against Defendant ALI CHEGINI by Plaintiff scheduled for 10/15/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/15/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Defendants Ali Chegini and Farimah Farahpour's Respective Depositions, etc. scheduled for 10/15/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/15/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/20/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/07/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 05/27/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketSupplemental Declaration of Alexandra Samofalova; Filed by: Eastview Townhouse Owner's Association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Eastview Townhouse Owner's Association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
21 More Docket Entries
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Eastview Townhouse Owner's Association (Plaintiff); As to: Ali Chegini (Defendant); Service Date: 05/18/2019; Service Cost: 150.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Eastview Townhouse Owner's Association (Plaintiff); As to: Farimah Farahpour (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 05/18/2019; Service Cost: 150.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Eastview Townhouse Owner's Association (Plaintiff); As to: Ali Chegini (Defendant); Farimah Farahpour (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Eastview Townhouse Owner's Association (Plaintiff); As to: Ali Chegini (Defendant); Farimah Farahpour (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Eastview Townhouse Owner's Association (Plaintiff); As to: Ali Chegini (Defendant); Farimah Farahpour (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03823    Hearing Date: October 15, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Thu., October 15, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Assn. v. Chegini, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC03823  COMP. FILED: 04-17-19

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 04-27-21

  MOTION C/O: 05-12-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-27-21

PROCEEDINGS    (1) MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED AGAINST DEFENDANT FARIMAH FARAHPOUR

(2) MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED AGAINST DEFENDANT ALI CHEGINI

(3) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITIONS AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Association

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2033.280; 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Association’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are GRANTED. In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Depositions is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to appear for deposition at a date and time to be noticed by Plaintiff. However, at either party’s election, the deposition may take place remotely as provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310. Furthermore, Defendants are ordered to pay sanctions of $1,475.00 within thirty (30) days’ 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

Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 12, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 12, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

Motion Compel Depositions 

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 12, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 12, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Association (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and declaratory relief against Defendants Ali Chegini (“Chegini”) and Farimah Farahpour (“Farahpour”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On July 8, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer, in pro per.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted Against Defendant Farimah Farahpour, and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted Against Defendant Ali Chegini (collectively, the “RFA Motions”). In addition, on May 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Defendants’ Depositions and for Imposition of Sanctions (the “Deposition Motion”).

Defendants filed a Substitution of Attorney on January 21, 2020 indicating that they were being represented by attorney Steffanie Stelnick. (1/21/20 Substitutions of Attorney.) Six months later, on July 21, 2020, Defendants filed a second Substitution of Attorney indicating they were once again proceeding as self-represented litigants. (7/21/20 Substitution of Attorney.)

At the initial July 30, 2020 hearing, the Court noted that the RFA Motions lacked evidentiary support. (7/30/20 Minute Order.) The Court also noted that Plaintiff impermissibly attempted to combine multiple requests for relief into one Deposition Motion without paying the requisite number of filing fees. (Id.) Accordingly, the matter was continued to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to address these deficiencies. (Id.) On August 3, 2020, Plaintiff paid an additional filing fee and on August 7, 2020, it filed a supplemental declaration.

To date, no oppositions to the discovery motions have 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 each Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set One, on August 23, 2019 via first-class mail and e-mail. (RFA Motions., pp. 3:2-4, Samofalova Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exh. 1.) To date, Defendants have not provided any responses. (8/7/20 Supp. Samofalova Decl., ¶ 2.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Sets One, admitted against Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

B. Deposition

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) provides:

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The motion must “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Here, Plaintiff first served each Defendant with a Notice of Deposition on November 13, 2019 via regular mail and email. (Deposition Mot., Samofalova Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The depositions were scheduled for December 3, 2019 at Plaintiff’s counsel’s Los Angeles office. (Id.) When Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendants a courtesy reminder of the depositions on November 27, 2019, Defendants stated they did not receive the deposition notices and that they were unavailable all December. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff agreed to reschedule the depositions for January 7, 2020 as requested by Defendants and sent Amended Notices of Deposition on December 9, 2019 via regular mail. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 5, Exh. B.) On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendants a reminder of the January 7, 2020 depositions and requested confirmation that they would attend. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendants’ counsel, however, requested that the depositions be rescheduled due to a scheduling conflict. (Id.) Plaintiff agreed to reschedule the depositions for January 22, 2020 and mailed a Second Amended Notice of Deposition on January 9, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8, Exh. C.) On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendants’ counsel a courtesy reminder of the January 22, 2020 depositions, but Defendants’ counsel canceled them due to an illness without proposing alternative dates. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested available dates for Defendants’ depositions on January 24, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Because Defendants’ counsel did not provide alternative dates, Plaintiff proposed several dates on February 7, 2020, but Defendants did not respond. (Id. at ¶ 11.) On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff served a Third Amended Notice of Deposition for each Defendant, noticing the depositions for February 28, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 12, Exh. D.) Plaintiff sent yet another courtesy reminder for the rescheduled depositions on February 24, 2020, but Defendants’ counsel stated that date conflicted with a previously scheduled deposition. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Plaintiff agreed to reschedule the depositions and asked Defendants’ counsel to confirm a proposed date of March 5, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Defendants’ counsel never confirmed the proposed date or provided alternative dates for the depositions. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff has submitted a copy of the email exchanges between the parties demonstrating its attempts to schedule Defendants’ depositions. (Id. at ¶ 16, Exh. E.) As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff received no response regarding alternative deposition dates from Defendants. (Id. at ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates it has satisfied the meet and confer requirements and that it is entitled to an order compelling Defendants to appear for deposition. Defendants are ordered to appear for deposition at a time and date to be noticed by Plaintiff. However, at either party’s election, the deposition may take place remotely as provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310.

C. 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).) In addition, a court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel a deposition is granted unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

The Court finds Defendants’ failure to respond to the Requests for Admission and failure to appear for and cooperate in rescheduling their depositions a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the imposition of sanctions is mandatory under both Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 and section 2033.280.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $1,976.00 for the RFA Motions based on 5.8 hours of attorney time billed at $320.00 per hour and two filing fees of $60.00. (RFA Motions, Samofalova Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.) Plaintiff also seeks sanctions of $2,760.00 for the Deposition Motion based on 8 hours of attorney time billed at $345.00 per hour. (Deposition Motion, Samofalova Decl., ¶ 17.) However, Plaintiff’s request is excessive given the simplicity of these discovery Motions and the lack of oppositions and replies. The Court finds $1,475.00, based on 1 hour of attorney time and two filing fees for the RFA Motions and 3 hours of attorney time for the Deposition Motion, to be reasonable. Defendants are ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Association’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are GRANTED. In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Depositions is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to appear for deposition at a date and time to be noticed by Plaintiff. However, at either party’s election, the deposition may take place remotely as provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310. Furthermore, Defendants are ordered to pay sanctions of $1,475.00 within thirty (30) days’ notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03823    Hearing Date: July 30, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., July 30, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Assn. v. Chegini, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC03823 COMP. FILED: 04-17-19

NOTICE: NO (Deposition Motion) DISC. C/O: 09-14-20

MOTION C/O: 09-29-20

TRIAL DATE: 10-14-20

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED AGAINST DEFENDANT FARIMAH FARAHPOUR

(2) MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED AGAINST DEFENDANT ALI CHEGINI

(3) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITIONS AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Association

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2033.280; 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Association’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Motion to Compel Defendants’ Depositions are CONTINUED TO October 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Plaintiff must also pay one additional filing fee. Failure to obey the Court’s order may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

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

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

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

Motions to Deem Admitted

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 27, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 27, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

Motions Compel Deposition

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 27, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 27, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Association (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and declaratory relief against Defendants Ali Chegini (“Chegini”) and Farimah Farahpour (“Farahpour”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On July 8, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer, in pro per.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted Against Defendant Farimah Farahpour, and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted Against Defendant Ali Chegini (collectively, the “RFA Motions”). In addition, on May 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants’ Depositions and for Imposition of Sanctions (the “Deposition Motion”).

To date, no oppositions to the discovery motions have 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 each Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set One, on August 23, 2019 via first-class mail and e-mail. (RFA Motions., pp. 3:2-4, Samofalova Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exh. 1.) The Motions themselves state that neither Defendant has provided any responses to the discovery. (RFA Motions, pp. 4:4:8-11.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel’s supporting declarations are silent as to whether Defendants have provided any discovery responses. (See RFA Motions, Samofalova, Decl., ¶¶ 1-4.) Thus, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support its assertion that Defendants have failed to respond to the discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to provide a supplemental declaration addressing this deficiency.

B. Deposition

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the hearing date and time on the Notice of Motion was left blank. (See Deposition Mot., p. 1:25-27.) The hearing for the Deposition Motion was later scheduled for July 30, 2020 at 10:30 a.m., but Plaintiff has not yet filed a proof of service demonstrating it gave Defendants notice of the scheduling. Thus, the Court cannot find Defendants were given adequate notice of the hearing.

In addition, Plaintiff’s Deposition Motion impermissibly attempts to combine multiple requests for relief into a single motion. Specifically, Plaintiff moves the Court to compel both Defendants to appear for deposition. (Deposition Mot., pp. 1:25-2:9.) However, filing multiple requests for relief as a single motion negatively impacts the Court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. In addition, combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Here, Plaintiff has only paid one filing fee for what should have been two separate motions. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to pay one additional filing fee.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Eastview Townhouse Owner’s Association’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Motion to Compel Defendants’ Depositions are CONTINUED TO October 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Plaintiff must also pay one additional filing fee. Failure to obey the Court’s order may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.