This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/05/2020 at 06:02:25 (UTC).

YAGIZ ACAR VS OVERALL MURALS, INC.

Case Summary

On 06/12/2019 YAGIZ ACAR filed an Other lawsuit against OVERALL MURALS, INC. 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:

    *******5541

  • Filing Date:

    06/12/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ACAR YAGIZ

Defendant

OVERALL MURALS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

PURITSKY ERIC

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

8/3/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

4/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 04/24/2020

4/24/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 04/24/2020

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/28/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted) of 03/09/2020

3/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted) of 03/09/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

3/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Continuance of Motion Hearings) of 03/18/2020

3/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Continuance of Motion Hearings) of 03/18/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Continuance of Motion Hearings)

3/18/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Continuance of Motion Hearings)

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

1/9/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

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

1/9/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

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

1/9/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Answer - Answer

8/1/2019: Answer - Answer

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

6/28/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint - Complaint

6/12/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/12/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

6/12/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

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

6/12/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

6/12/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/09/2020
  • Hearing12/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Overall Murals, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/03/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/03/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/03/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketAddress for Eric Puritsky (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Eric Puritsky (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 08/01/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Overall Murals, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Yagiz Acar (Plaintiff); As to: Overall Murals, Inc. (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 06/25/2019; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Yagiz Acar (Plaintiff); As to: Overall Murals, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yagiz Acar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC05541    Hearing Date: August 03, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., August 3, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Acar v. Overall Murals, Inc. COMPL. FILED: 06-12-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC05541 DISC. C/O: 11-09-20

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 11-24-19

TRIAL DATE: 12-09-20

PROCEEDINGS: (1) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS

(2) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS

(3) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Overall Murals, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

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

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Overall Murals, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $605.00 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 July 29, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 29, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff Yagiz Acar (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for property damage, in pro per, against Defendant Overall Murals, Inc. (“Defendant”). On August 1, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On January 9, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Sanctions, (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and for Sanctions, and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). To date, no opposition briefs have been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

A. Request for Production, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or 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., § 2030.290, subd. (b); 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., § 2030.290, subd. (a); 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), 2030.290; 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., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on October 11, 2019 via overnight delivery. (Motions., Puritsky Decl., ¶¶ 2, Exhs. A.) Although not procedurally required, on December 17, 2019, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a letter regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, Exhs. B.) To date, Plaintiff has not provided any responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 3.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 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 Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel requests a total of $5,280.00 in sanctions, which consists of 12 hours of attorney time billed at $425.00 an hour and three filing fees of $60.00. (Mot., Puritsky Decl., ¶ 5.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $605.00 based on one hour of attorney time and three filing fees of $60.00. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Overall Murals, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $605.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC05541    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Overall Murals, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $485.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff Yagiz Acar (“Plaintiff”) filed an action, in pro per, for negligence against Defendant Overall Murals, Inc. (“Defendant”). On August 1, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On January 8, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

  1. 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, Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission, Set One, on October 11, 2019, by overnight delivery. (Mot., Purtisky Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Although not required, on December 17, 2019, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. B.) To date, Defendant has not received any responses to the discovery or the meet and confer letter. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

  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 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 Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Admission a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel requests a total of $1,547.50 in sanctions, which includes 3.5 hours of attorney time billed at $425.00 an hour and one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Purtisky Decl., ¶ 5.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of the Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $485.00 based on one hour of attorney time and one filing fee of $60.00. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Overall Murals, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the reduced amount of $485.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.