This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/27/2021 at 06:54:28 (UTC).

SAM DERAKHSHAN VS AVA AZIMI

Case Summary

On 07/30/2019 SAM DERAKHSHAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against AVA AZIMI. 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:

    *******7013

  • Filing Date:

    07/30/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DERAKHSHAN SAM

PARS ACCOUNTING INC.

Defendant

AZIMI AVA AKA ASMA AZIMI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KATOFSKY JEFF

Defendant Attorney

BOWMAN STANLEY DREW

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/10/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/24/2021

6/24/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/24/2021

Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint - Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

2/26/2021: Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint - Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time or Continuing Trial

3/1/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time or Continuing Trial

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/8/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration regarding Notice

1/19/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration regarding Notice

Exhibit List - Exhibit List

1/22/2021: Exhibit List - Exhibit List

Notice (name extension) - Notice of continuance of hearing on motion to compel

7/24/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of continuance of hearing on motion to compel

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

7/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice of continuance of hearing on motion to compel

5/5/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of continuance of hearing on motion to compel

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions

4/17/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions

4/22/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

3/12/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

General Denial - General Denial

12/18/2019: General Denial - General Denial

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

11/12/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

10/31/2019: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

10/2/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

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

8/26/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/19/2022
  • Hearing01/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: PARS ACCOUNTING, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Reconsideration scheduled for 08/10/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/10/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint: Filed By: AVA AZIMI (Defendant); Result: Denied; Result Date: 07/22/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint scheduled for 07/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/22/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2021
  • DocketOpposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint; Filed by: PARS ACCOUNTING, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: AVA AZIMI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint scheduled for 07/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
51 More Docket Entries
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: SAM DERAKHSHAN (Plaintiff); As to: AVA AZIMI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: SAM DERAKHSHAN (Plaintiff); As to: AVA AZIMI (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 08/26/2019; Service Cost: 112.10; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: SAM DERAKHSHAN (Plaintiff); As to: AVA AZIMI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: SAM DERAKHSHAN (Plaintiff); As to: AVA AZIMI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: SAM DERAKHSHAN (Plaintiff); As to: AVA AZIMI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STLC07013 Hearing Date: August 10, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nFOR RECONSIDERATION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff\r\nPars Accounting, Inc.

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 1008)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Pars Accounting, Inc.’s\r\nMotion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. After reconsidering the Court’s March 3,\r\n2021 Minute Order, discovery and law and motion practice remains closed except\r\nfor matters related to Defendant’s deposition in accordance with the January\r\n25, 2021 Stipulation and Order.

\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\r\n6, 2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof August 6, 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

On July 30, 2019, Sam Derakhshan filed an action against\r\nDefendant Ava Azimi aka Asma Azimi (“Defendant”). A First Amended Complaint\r\n(the “FAC”) was filed on October 31, 2019 substituting Sam Derakhshan for\r\nPlaintiff Pars Accounting, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Defendant filed a general\r\ndenial, in pro per, on December 18, 2019.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A non-jury trial was originally scheduled for January 26,\r\n2021. On January 25, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation explaining that\r\nDefendant was continuously exposed to COVID-19 due to her work with the\r\ngovernment. (1/25/21 Stipulation.) As a result, the parties agreed (1) to\r\ncontinue the trial to April 27, 2021, (2) that discovery remained closed except\r\nthat Defendant agreed to appear for a remote deposition within thirty days of\r\nthe date the Stipulation was granted, and (3) that law and motion practice\r\nremained closed and cutoff except as it related to Defendant’s deposition. (Id.)\r\nThe Court signed an order pursuant to the Stipulation that same day. (1/25/21\r\nOrder.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On February 16, 2021, Defendant filed a notice of\r\nsubstitution of attorney indicating she was now being represented by attorney\r\nStanley D. Bowman.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a\r\ncross-complaint on February 26, 2021, which was denied on July 22, 2021. (7/22/21\r\nMinute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant also filed an ex parte application for an order\r\nshortening time to hear her motion for leave or to continue the trial on March\r\n1, 2021. Having reviewed the ex parte application in chambers, the Court\r\npartially granted relief and continued the trial to January 19, 2022. (3/3/21\r\nMinute Order.) The Court also stated that all motion and discovery dates would\r\nbe governed by the new trial date. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of\r\nOrder (the “Motion”) on March 16, 2021. No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008\r\nprovides, in pertinent part:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(a)\r\nWhen an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and\r\nrefused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms,\r\nany party affected by the order may, within\r\n10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the\r\norder and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make an application\r\nto the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and\r\nmodify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application\r\nshall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what\r\njudge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts,\r\ncircumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(b) A party who\r\noriginally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or in\r\npart, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application\r\nfor the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which\r\ncase it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and\r\nto what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different\r\nfacts circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply\r\nwith this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked\r\nor set aside on an ex parte motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(e) This\r\nsection specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and\r\nrenewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court,\r\nor for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim\r\nor final. No application to reconsider\r\nany order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any\r\njudge or court unless made according to\r\nthis section.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code\r\nCiv. Proc. § 1008, subds. (a), (b), (e).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s Motion is timely and includes the required\r\naffidavit identifying the relevant order and explaining the circumstances that\r\nwarrant reconsideration. (Mot., Leff Decl., ¶¶ 7-15.) Plaintiff urges the\r\nCourt to reconsider the March 3, 2021 Order making all motion and discovery\r\ndates governed by the new January 19, 2022 trial date. (Mot., pp. 4-.5) As\r\nnoted above, the parties had previously executed a Stipulation agreeing that\r\nlaw and motion practice remained closed and cut-off except as it related to\r\nDefendant’s deposition and the Court signed an order pursuant to that\r\nStipulation. (1/25/21 Stipulation; 1/25/21 Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

When the ex parte application to shorten time or continue\r\ntrial came up for hearing, the Hon. James E. Blancarte appears to have\r\ninadvertently not considered the January 25 Stipulation and Order maintaining\r\nlaw and motion and discovery dates closed except for matters related to\r\nDefendant’s deposition when he issued his ruling. As Plaintiff points out,\r\nDefendant did not request that motion and discovery dates be reopened in her ex\r\nparte application. (3/1/21 Ex Parte Application.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“New circumstances” for purposes of a motion for\r\nreconsideration include a court’s failure to consider documents previously\r\nfiled in issuing a ruling. (See Johnston v. Corrigan (2005) 127\r\nCal.App.4th 553, 556-57.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. After reconsidering\r\nthe Court’s March 3, 2021 Order, discovery and law and motion practice remains\r\nclosed except for matters related to Defendant’s deposition in accordance with\r\nthe January 25, 2021 Stipulation and Order. \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff\r\nPars Accounting, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. After\r\nreconsidering the Court’s March 3, 2021 Minute Order, discovery and law and\r\nmotion practice remains closed except for matters related to Defendant’s\r\ndeposition in accordance with the January 25, 2021 Stipulation and Order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

\r\n\r\n

'

Case Number: 19STLC07013    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Wed., August 26, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME Derakshian v. Azimi COMPL. FILED: 07-30-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC07013 DISC. C/O: 01-11-21

NOTICE:   OK MOTION C/O: 12-27-20

TRIAL DATE: 01-26-21

PROCEEDINGS    MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Pars Accounting, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS  

(CCP § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Pars Accounting, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant must provide verified responses without objections to the discovery within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $435.00 to be paid 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 August 24, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 24, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On July 30, 2019, Sam Derakhshan filed an action against Defendant Ava Azimi aka Asma Azimi (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and common counts. On October 31, 2019, a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed, substituting Plaintiff Pars Accounting, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) for Sam Derakshian. On December 18, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer, in pro per.

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Form 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.) 

Here, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories, Set One, on January 2, 2020 by regular mail. (Mot., Leff Decl., ¶ 2.) Although not procedurally required, on February 10, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant regarding the lack of discovery responses and granted an extension until February 20, 2020 to provide them without objections. (Id. at ¶  4.) To date, Defendant has not provided any responses to the interrogatories. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. (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 to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery request a misuse of the discovery process.

Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $1,747.00, which consists of 4.5 hours of attorney time billed at $375.00 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Song Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $435.00, based on one hour of attorney time and one filing fee, to be reasonable. Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Pars Accounting, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Defendant must provide verified responses without objections to the discovery within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $435.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice 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 BOWMAN STANLEY D.