HUGUETTE RAHME VS. OMAR G. MALOOF, ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC057312    Hearing Date: December 17, 2020    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 12/17/20

Case #PC057312

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

Motion filed on 7/31/20.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Huguette Rahme

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Omar G. Maloof; Michelle Etmyemezian; Scallia Corporation; Bannaoun Engineers; Maloof Companies LLC; and Maloof Naman Builders

NOTICE:

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order that the truth of all specified matters in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set 1, served on Defendants Omar G. Maloof; Michelle Etmyemezian; Scallia Corporation; Bannaoun Engineers; Maloof Companies LLC; and Maloof Naman Builders on 2/5/20 be deemed admitted. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant Maloof and his attorney Farah Faramarzi in the amount of $2,810.00.

RULING: The motion is denied.

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions. (See also 10/1/20 Notice to Attorneys).

Plaintiff fails to provide clear notice of the relief requested. CRC 3.1110(a). In the notice of motion, Plaintiff contends that the subject Requests for Admissions were served on Defendants Omar G. Maloof; Michelle Etmyemezian; Scallia Corporation; Bannaoun Engineers; Maloof Companies LLC; and Maloof Naman Builders on 2/5/20 and seeks an order deeming the matters admitted. (See Notice of Motion, p.1:19-25). However, the Requests for Admissions indicate that the responding party is “Omar G Maloof et al.” (See Koutsoukos Decl. ¶2, Ex.1). Despite the fact that Plaintiff contends the Requests for Admissions were served on several defendants, Plaintiff only requests sanctions against “Defendant Maloof” and his attorney, Farah Faramarzi, and claims that only “Defendant Maloof” failed to serve timely responses. (See Notice of Motion, p.1:25-28). In the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling “Maloof” to provide responses to the Requests for Admissions within five days and seeks sanctions against Maloof and Lioness Law Group. (See Motion Memorandum of Points and Authorities, p.3:3-9). Based on the foregoing, it is not clear to which defendant or defendants the Requests for Admissions were directed, to which defendant or defendants this motion is directed, or the exact relief requested (i.e., an order deeming admitted, an order compelling responses, sanctions against attorney Faramarzi or Lioness Law Group).

Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the underlying Requests for Admissions were properly served. Plaintiff contends that Requests for Admissions, Set 1, were served on Defendant Maloof by electronic mail and facsimile on 2/5/20 (before the 6/11/20 General Order requiring all parties who use e-filing to accept electronic service). (Koutsoukos Decl. ¶2, Ex.1 – the proof of service attached to the Requests for Admissions only indicates service by facsimile). However, defense counsel contends that there was never an agreement for service by electronic mail or by facsimile. (See Faramarzi Decl. ¶12). Plaintiff’s counsel fails to address this issue in the reply/response to opposition. Rather, without citing any authority, Plaintiff claims that defense counsel waived the right to object to the Requests for Admissions, including an objection based on electronic service. (See Reply/Response, p.2:14-16). However, if the underlying discovery was not properly served, no response was required.

Regardless of the foregoing, in the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that on 7/10/20, he “received Maloof’s responses to our request for admissions” which he claims were non-responsive. (Koutsoukos Decl. ¶4, Ex.3; See also Faramarzi Decl. ¶19). Inexplicably, in the reply, Plaintiff’s counsel states “[t]o date this office has never received any responses to those Requests for Admissions Set One.” (Koutsoukos Reply Decl. ¶2). Since Plaintiff admittedly received responses to the Requests for Admissions, Plaintiff was required to file and comply with the requirements for a motion to compel further responses. See CCP 2033.290(a), (b). Plaintiff has failed to meet such requirements.

Further, it should be noted that a motion deeming Requests for Admissions, Set 1, served on Omar G. Maloof, was already granted on 9/27/17. (See 9/27/17 Minute Order; Motion filed on 7/1/17). As such, it appears that the subsequently served set of Requests for Admission served on Omar G. Maloof was mis-numbered.

Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied. The opposition seeks sanctions against “Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.” (See Opp. p.1:25-26; Faramarzi Decl. ¶24). A request for sanctions must “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought.” See CCP 2023.040. By seeking sanctions against “Plaintiff’s counsel” it cannot be determined if sanctions are sought against attorney Koutsoukos, his law firm, JMK Law Group, or both.