This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/20/2021 at 10:04:14 (UTC).

FARZANEH AZIZIAN VS ABM INDUSTRY GROUP LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/29/2019 FARZANEH AZIZIAN filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ABM INDUSTRY GROUP LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4196

  • Filing Date:

    04/29/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

AZIZIAN FARZANEH

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

QUIJADA OSCAR RODAS

ABM INDUSTRY GROUP LLC

SAKS BEVERLY HILLS LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

AZIZIAN BENJAMIN ABRAHAM

Defendant Attorneys

KALOOKY EVAN A.

AMEELE KEITH M.

Cross Defendant Attorney

KIM STEVE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Re...)

1/11/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Re...)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Service

1/4/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Service

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

12/30/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

12/30/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF EVAN A. KALOOKY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

12/30/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF EVAN A. KALOOKY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/3/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Answer - Answer

10/30/2020: Answer - Answer

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to From and Special Interrogatories, Sets One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions

11/3/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to From and Special Interrogatories, Sets One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

7/22/2020: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

8/21/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of trial counsel

8/21/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of trial counsel

Answer - Answer

8/21/2020: Answer - Answer

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

8/21/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Of Service

8/21/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Of Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

9/16/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

9/17/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

9/23/2020: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

9/23/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/02/2022
  • Hearing05/02/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • Hearing05/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • Hearing03/25/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • Hearing03/25/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • Hearing03/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 03/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Re...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions, Sets One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions scheduled for 01/11/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 01/11/2021; Result Type to Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions, Sets One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions scheduled for 01/11/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 03/01/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2021
  • DocketReply Reply Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Filed by: ABM Industry Group LLC (Defendant); Oscar Rodas Quijada, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Of Service; Filed by: ABM Industry Group LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Farzaneh Azizian (Plaintiff); As to: Saks Beverly Hills LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by: Farzaneh Azizian (Plaintiff); As to: Saks Beverly Hills LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Farzaneh Azizian (Plaintiff); As to: ABM Industry Group LLC (Defendant); Oscar Rodas Quijada, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Farzaneh Azizian (Plaintiff); As to: ABM Industry Group LLC (Defendant); Oscar Rodas Quijada, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Farzaneh Azizian (Plaintiff); As to: ABM Industry Group LLC (Defendant); Oscar Rodas Quijada, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04196    Hearing Date: January 11, 2021    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants ABM Industry Groups, LLC and Oscar Rodas Quijada’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MARCH 1, 2021 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff Farzaneh Azizian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants ABM Industry Groups, LLC, Oscar Rodas Quijada and Saks Beverly Hills, LLC (“Defendants”) for motor vehicle negligence. On August 21, 2020, Defendants cross-complained for motor vehicle negligence.

On November 3, 2020, Defendants ABM and Quijada (“Moving Defendants”) filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Request for Sanctions.  Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 28, 2020.

Discussion

Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff’s initial responses were served by electronic mail on September 15, 2020. (Motion, Kalooky Decl., Exh. C.) The Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses were timely served on November 3, 2020. (Proof of Service, filed 11/3/20.)

The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter on October 29, 2020, to which Plaintiff’s counsel responded on November 2, 2020. (Motion, Kalooky Decl., Exhs. E-F.) Defendants did not respond again until December 10, 2020, after this Motion had been filed. (Id. at Exh. G.) In light of this evidence, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

Third, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery to attach a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) A separate statement was filed in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Responses.

Finally, the Court addresses the substance of the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses and Request for Sanctions. The Motion turns on the limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 94, subdivision (a), which specifically provides “[a]s to each adverse party, a party may use the following forms of discovery: (a) Any combination of 35 of the following:

(1) Interrogatories (with no subparts) under Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a)(1).) Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim in opposition, no informal discovery conference is required in the Limited Jurisdiction Court.

In serving multiple sets of discovery on Plaintiffs, Moving Defendants served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission and Requests for Production. (Motion, Kalooky Decl., ¶5.) The Form Interrogatories of both Moving Defendants, however, improperly include subparts in contravention of the limited jurisdiction discovery statute. (Opp., Azizian Decl., Exh. A.) In fact, there are specific form interrogatories approved by the Judicial Council for use in the Limited Jurisdiction Court that do not contain subparts. (Option Judicial Council Form Disc-004.) In comparison, the General Form Interrogatories form does contain subparts and is inappropriate for use in a limited jurisdiction case.

In responding to the written discovery, Plaintiff treated each subpart to the form interrogatories as a separate request that counted towards the 35-request limit. (Motion, Kalooky Decl., Exhs. E-F.) Plaintiff responded to the first 35 interrogatory subparts and objected to the remainder of the discovery, including the remaining interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for production. (Ibid.) Among Plaintiff’s objections to the remaining discovery requests were that Defendants served more than the permitted number of requests. (Ibid.)

There is no case law addressing the circumstances presented by this dispute. Defendants’ reference to Fink v. Moreno, Becerra & Guerrero, Inc. (2008) 2008 WL 2154074 (without even a page citation to guide the Court) is unhelpful because not only is it an unpublished case, but also because the discovery objections therein do not pertain to the limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 94 or the use of subparts in the Limited Jurisdiction Court. (Fink v. Moreno, Becerra & Guerrero, Inc. (2008) 2008 WL 2154074, *10.)

The Court finds both parties to conduct contributed to the dispute raised in this Motion. Defendants were obligated to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 94 by serving Form Interrogatories with no subparts, but mistakenly failed to do so. Plaintiff’s response to the Form Interrogatories improperly sought to take advantage of that mistake. It is no excuse, as Plaintiff makes, that he was under no obligation to inform Defendants that the Form Interrogatories were improper. One of the main purposes of the Discovery Code is to eliminate gamesmanship (Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court  Act is to eliminate gamesmanship and streamline judicial involvement over discovery minutiae.”].) The Court cannot condone Plaintiff’s attempt to characterize each subpart of the Form Interrogatories as a whole interrogatory in order to avoid answering further discovery. On the other hand, it would be unfair to allow Defendants to obtain more information from the use of form interrogatories with subparts than provided for in form interrogatories without subparts.

Therefore, the Court orders the parties to prepare a joint statement correlating the information sought in the general Form Interrogatories served on Plaintiff with the Limited Jurisdiction Form Interrogatories that cover the same topics. The joint statement is to be supported by a meet and confer declaration and relevant exhibits demonstrating the good faith preparation of the joint statement. Based on the joint statement, the Court will make a determination regarding the number of Form Interrogatories that have been served on Plaintiff and whether the limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 94 have been reached. The Court will not consider any further opposing briefs on this issue; only a joint statement is to be filed. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 on any non-complying person. The joint statement is to be filed within 30 days service of this order.

Conclusion

Defendants ABM Industry Groups, LLC and Oscar Rodas Quijada’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MARCH 1, 2021 AT _____ AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party to give notice.